Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About CUDAcores89

Contact Methods

  • Twitch.tv
  • Twitter

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    At a scrapyard
  • Interests
    Computers, computer hardware, DIY activities and pretty much anything involving electronic stuff.
  • Occupation


  • CPU
    2x intel Xeon e5-2609 v2
  • Motherboard
    Lenovo D30 Motherboard
  • RAM
    128GB of DDR3 (16x8gb)
  • GPU
    Nvidia GTX 970
  • Case
    Lenovo D30 case
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 Evo 256GB, 256GB samsung 840 Evo SSD, 2TB HGST HDD
  • PSU
    1100w delta PSU
  • Display(s)
    1920x1080p 21.5" samsung monitor
  • Cooling
    Lenovo D30 cooler
  • Keyboard
    HP keyboard
  • Mouse
    HP mouse
  • Sound
    Soundblaster audigy2 PCI sound card.
  • Operating System
    windows 10 pro 64-bit

Recent Profile Visitors

88,167 profile views

Single Status Update

See all updates by CUDAcores89

  1. Dad: health care should be privatized. This allows for the free markets to incentivize more treatments and decreased prices for consumers. (We do both agree preventitive care should be free because it can stop an expensive disease from developing).


    Friends: health care should be socialized ro allow for an equal distribution of health care to those who need it most. Health care should be an unalienable right to every citizen of a developed country.


    My mom (who works for united health) :


    Both systems are equally terrible and neither is better than the other. Now let me get back to my knitting son.


    My mom is great. She just filthy frank style says "yeah, they both equally suck".

    1. CUDAcores89


      @Lukyp she elaborated by saying:


      privatized health care can be very good, but also very expensive for new medications in particular. Competition can aid this, but the patent system gives companies to develop a life saving drug to begin with.


      Socialized health care can give even poor people something better than nothing.  The problem is you remove the incentive for the private sector to develop life saving drugs in the first place. Yes the drug will be expensive if produced by the private sector, but without a profit motive, the drug will not have been developed at all.


      Also here is my input:


      Think about it this way. Lets say your doctor just told you that you have cancer and you will die in 30 days, unless you take this drug every day for $100 a pill. You now must either choose to take the drug, or die. Seem pretty cruel right?


      Okay, how about we back up 10 years. Lets say you get the same cancer and you will also die within 30 days. At this point in time the life saving drug does not exist, so you will have no choice but to die.


      Scenario two means you will have no choice but to die. Scenario one means you can at least CHOOSE what to do next. The life saving medication is now at least AVAILABLE for the taking, when before it was not. Yes the medication is expensive, but at least it exists. After the medication goes generic, prices will come down by themselves.


      The private sector gives the incentive to develop better, cheaper, and less invasive medical procedures. Without a profit motive, we can never drive down the cost of health care. Socialized health care guruantees health care will not only remain expensive, but have to be rationed. Then the private sector cannot lower costs by finding cheaper alternatives later on.


      The answer i believe lies in free preventitive care with the rest being privatized. The idea behind this is preventitive care is incredibly cheap, so we can prevent expensive diseases from developing later on that wiuld require high costs.


      The private sector can handle everything else. This way be provide an incentive to develop better and cheaper products.