Exactly how and which medical research is funded is a thing that reasonable and well informed people can debate-- particularly since the US taxpayer funds medical research at greater levels than our European peers that are so often cited has having enlightened public policy on the subject of health care.

There is no correlation between your comment and what actually happened.

> See Trump defunding medical research. Capitalists need medical care too, but they think quarterly.

You're right about the defunding of research - it's loudly proclaimed as a way to save money.

You're also right that the long term effects would indeed cost a lot more but I would add only if the current social contract is kept in place. As I see it, the chainsaw brandishing is really aimed at the latter, the former is just for show.

Redefining the social contract appears to be the endgame here, in that case, the thinking goes much further than quarterly.

But not that deep… because if 99.999% of the people can't afford a surgeon we will just have fewer surgeons. And as it is, for some procedures, there's like just 1 or 2 people in the world who can perform them. Take away 99.99999% of their customers and there will be nobody who can perform them instead.

So quality of care will decrease (to a much lesser extent) for rich people as well.

Do you think they accounted for that? I doubt it.

I agree with you about the ugly aspects of a polarized world. Both of us would rather live in a normal world than be among the elite in a polarized one. However, that might be the very reason we aren't currently among the elite. I mean, they think differently and not by accident. They think long term but with a different value system in mind, they would accept some risks for the sake of power.

If you watch the video of Dan Bongino talking about power you'll get the vibes.