- right, slept through history class... at home, where my family members told me actual history about expropriation of land. My actual history class IN USSR schools was worthless though.

Market is regulated by itself, by individuals making individual decisions on every day basis and no, con people shouldn't be killing people, but that's beside the point. Maybe you believe there are no con people in your 'regulated markets'? Ha!

No, I am not interested in gray when we are talking about SLAVERY. There is no minimal amount of slavery to justify that gray area.

You don't like the industry and think you can do a better job than the industry, start doing it, build your own company and sell your own solutions. FDA is a murderous government organisation, just like all other government organisations.

- a bunch of made up nonsense that covers up the simple idea of government control and destruction of individual liberties and yes, we had 'it', when we destroyed private property rights, stole land from people who were working on it (and yes, they actually owned it as individuals, which is the only way to own something), stole and destroyed all other businesses as well, factories, stores, whatever.

Again, I have 0 interest in the superficial differences between definitions of collectivism where the actual true life consequences are very simple: destruction of individual liberties, destruction of individual freedoms, oppression of the individual by the collective.

Are you sure you want to go down this route? France, Germany, Russia, everybody was taking note of the Mayo Clinic from late 18 hundreds while in Soviet Russia we were busy declaring that genetics and cybernetics are 'prostitutes of the bourgeoisie' and promoting Lysenkoism instead of real science.

Or maybe you think that only free market creates con artists? Or maybe you think that socialist/fascist control over individuals actually provides people with more individual choices in the market and lower prices? Hmmm, I have a bridge I want to sell, interested?

You only have yourself to blame for your shitty life experiences and generally speaking to fuck something you have to have a cock first and the only one you've got is the one growing out of your neck that you are eating into.

Ha ha ha ha! In the USSR we invented 4 or 5 antibiotics over the life of the country (a country that lasted for 69 or 74 years, depends on how you count) and it was complete and total socialism and of-course it was complete and total failure. How many antibiotics did they invent in Cuba exactly? North Korea?

American capitalism in 19th century American Free Market is actually what created cheap accessible and effective medical and pharma systems as for profit businesses and for the last 100 years American socialism/fascism have been destroying everything that was done.

Sure, there are some differences between the two. The big one is that California hasn't yet destroyed its big sectors, high tech and agriculture. I give the state ten years to do both of those in. Maybe they'll whack Hollywood while they're at it, but I think that's a bit more resistant to bad governance.

I just happen to not believe you.

Then why does "our money" get used for so much corruption, graft, and outright illegal activity like governments spying on their citizens? I don't care that you're an idiot, I just care that you allow "our money" to get used on such stupid bullshit.

You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for.

I was born in the USSR and saw soviet socialism as invective against the individual, I also lived in other socialist countries and again saw Western style socialism as invective against the individual. USA style corporatism and large socialist style government is fascist at this point, so I can observe that as well and I am not interested in it either, I also see it as invective against the individual. You think I need Wikipedia to define something from me that I saw and keep seeing in real life? Maybe you need Wikipedia to tell you what is obviously going on around, (which defines you as a person not worth arguing with) but I do not.

Socialism and fascism are both collectivism and collectivism is what I am 100% against, as it destroys individualism that I see as a requirement to have a free society.

Actually AFAIC they are the same thing from point of view of the resulting oppression of the individual liberties and freedoms and ability to run your life without the State interference.

You tell me, what is in your opinion the gigantic difference that matters enough where it concerns the individual liberties exactly?

AFAIC I don't care if it is some fucking autocrat with strong links in the corporate sector to decides to limit my freedoms and oppress me or if it is the fucking mob with its fucking voting system that decides to oppress me, the end result is the same fucking shit.

In both cases people that actually want to work for living and not be stolen from by the State end up being exactly that - slaves in the system, having their income stolen by the State. Does it matter what the stolen property ends up being used for from the perspective of the person it is stolen from? Not even a bit, because both systems promise this 'social contract' crap that is complete and utter nonsense, designed to vindicate the actual theft that is going on.

Not even slightly interested in irrelevant differences between the two when the major resulting issues are exactly the same.

So what? They don't care enough to use their own money.

Ok, what's wrong with that? 50% markup doesn't sound unreasonable.

And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.

I don't see a new issue here. Caretaker robots have more potential for risk and harm than a ladder does, but that's it. It's a matter of making sure liability law is up to snuff.

For me the real problem is the liability generated by acting unsolicited on a patient's behalf. If a robot starts discerning what is good for a patient and acting on that basis, then the provider, the manufacturer, and perhaps the robot itself will become liable for the choices of the robot that turned out to be bad. If the liability already exists by law, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then you've just created a large cost that wasn't there before. So it is better for these affected parties in the latter case to just not make that decision even if it happens to cause harm for the patient. If you don't like that outcome, then figure out how to tool liability law to give the results you desire.

Yes, I mean that state.