Over 75% of US bankrupcies are due to medical costs

[Ginobilly]

In addition, Generation Z is a mental-health ticking time bomb due to technology and the way their lives revolve the distorted representation of reality that is social media.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...utm_source=twb

True. This generation is the one who kills themselves over "cyber bullying". Have they ever heard of just shutting down all social media? And just focus on good ole reading and sports like old fashioned kids?


And this generation is the first that can't spell or do math without a smart phone or calculator. Also the first that's being exposed to 24/7 porn access on a cellphone.

[midnightpulp]

All good points. And just to piggyback on the bolded section (as it is something that bothers me as a parent), parents of yesteryear were concerned about time spent on TV/video games. And I try to limit time on electronic devices as much as I can, don't allow them at them at the dinner table, make sure homework is done first, etc. But I would be thrilled if the entertainment they chose even had an inkling of creative thought behind it. Instead of watching a television show with some type of creative narrative, they'd prefer to watch some dumbass gamer channel on youtube. Instead of playing a single player game with at least a storyline or some problem-solving aspect to it (or even something cooperative with their siblings), they'd rather play Fortnite. I think this illustrates perfectly how the attention span of kids today is just ed.

And my wife and I are real quick to take all this away when they aren't doing what they need to do (chores, schoolwork, etc). But I know most kids have free reign on everything because both parents work and frankly it's easier to just give the kid what they want.

The counterargument to our concerns is usually, "well, they thought books would lead to the intellectual decline of mankind [Socrates feared books would kill off the oral tradition and thus make human memory weaker], they thought the phonograph would forever kill off live music, they thought people would never leave their homes to talk to each other after the telephone was invented [which funny enough relates to our core concern], and look, we're still fine!"

Where I think modern technology differs is the limitless (and relatively inexpensive) choice it offers. You can always find another distraction and thus "never get bored," (to clarify, just because a distraction keeps you from being bored, doesn't mean it's stimulating). Sure, parents were concerned about our tv time and video game time, but the difference was, even with 100+ cable channels, it was still likely "there was nothing on." Videogames were expensive and we were lucky to get a new one every 2 or 3 months for birthdays, Christmas, good grades, whatever. Faced with boredom, we were forced to do something else beside consume something mediated through an electronic device: Draw, craft, or daydream (which is important to developing a creative mind). Boredom is actually a fertile breeding ground for the imagination, but today's kids are terrified of it.

https://www.ahaparenting.com/parenti...-good-for-kids

Videogame streaming is indeed one of the most frivolous forms of "entertainment" ever created. I honestly think limitless entertainment options is a bad thing, especially for kids. When you have limitless choice, you're prone to only seeking things out that interest you, when the way you often develop a love for something is usually the result of chance exposure (i.e. hearing a great song on the radio in a genre you wrote off). The Internet was supposed to be the antidote to genous culture, but culture actually seems to be more genous than ever.

[Spurminator]

The Internet was supposed to be the antidote to genous culture, but culture actually seems to be more genous than ever.

Seems to be human nature to seek groups of like-minded people. The internet is a convenient portal to either find information to fit in better with a subculture you want to be a part of, or to find a subculture that aligns with your interests.

Overall, I have to be an optimist and believe young people (and humanity as a whole) will adapt to technology without it ruining them. I'd like to think evolution is more powerful than technology. Device addiction doesn't affect everyone the same, so maybe those who are less affected will naturally thrive.

Is there any time in human history where we can definitively say humanity got worse as a whole? We've already weathered a lot of massive changes in lifestyle and innovation.

[midnightpulp]

Seems to be human nature to seek groups of like-minded people. The internet is a convenient portal to either find information to fit in better with a subculture you want to be a part of, or to find a subculture that aligns with your interests.

Overall, I have to be an optimist and believe young people (and humanity as a whole) will adapt to technology without it ruining them. I'd like to think evolution is more powerful than technology. Device addiction doesn't affect everyone the same, so maybe those who are less affected will naturally thrive.

Is there any time in human history where we can definitively say humanity got worse as a whole? We've already weathered a lot of massive changes in lifestyle and innovation.

I don't think modern technology is going to ruin humanity, but I don't think the effect its having on modern life is generally positive.

The main culprit that has made culture more genous is social media and the associated "FOMO" (Fear of Missing Out) phenomenon. Since people seem to have their smartphones surgically grafted to their hands these days, you can never really get away from the "influence of the crowd," to engage in self-discovery, cultivate your tastes, and thus develop a more robust palette of interests. When your phone is constantly buzzing with updates of your friends, family, and the whole facebook and twitter worlds sharing Bird Box and Thanos memes, well, you better watch those at once to get caught up. Here's an example. Look at the variety of genres that topped the box offices in 1986 (a movie about pool was 12. Sure, had the biggest star in the world in it, but a movie about pool wouldn't make over million dollars today, regardless of the actors): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly...yr=1986&p=.htm

Obviously we know the movies that dominate today's box office (Superhero movies and animated children's movies). Similar thing is happening in music, with the image centric genres of hip-hop and hip-hop influenced pop dominating everything, since those genres are more compatible with social media. And as I said in a prior post, kids today can't get away from the proverbial crowd since they're basically required to follow what their friends are doing on social media to keep up. As the Atlantic article pointed out, kids are basically in their rooms just looking at social media sites on their phones, when time alone in your room at night used to be a time for self-reflection, self-discovery, and personal cultivation, uninfluenced by the pressure of the crowd.

[spurraider21]

I don't think modern technology is going to ruin humanity, but I don't think the effect its having on modern life is generally positive.

The main culprit that has made culture more genous is social media and the associated "FOMO" (Fear of Missing Out) phenomenon. Since people seem to have their smartphones surgically grafted to their hands these days, you can never really get away from the "influence of the crowd," to engage in self-discovery, cultivate your tastes, and thus develop a more robust palette of interests. When your phone is constantly buzzing with updates of your friends, family, and the whole facebook and twitter worlds sharing Bird Box and Thanos memes, well, you better watch those at once to get caught up. Here's an example. Look at the variety of genres that topped the box offices in 1986 (a movie about pool was 12. Sure, had the biggest star in the world in it, but a movie about pool wouldn't make over million dollars today, regardless of the actors): https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly...yr=1986&p=.htm

Obviously we know the movies that dominate today's box office (Superhero movies and animated children's movies). Similar thing is happening in music, with the image centric genres of hip-hop and hip-hop influenced pop dominating everything, since those genres are more compatible with social media. And as I said in a prior post, kids today can't get away from the proverbial crowd since they're basically required to follow what their friends are doing on social media to keep up. As the Atlantic article pointed out, kids are basically in their rooms just looking at social media sites on their phones, when time alone in your room at night used to be a time for self-reflection, self-discovery, and personal cultivation, uninfluenced by the pressure of the crowd.

the trend to superhero movies was inevitable as the technology allowed for it. the market was always there. comic books, animated shows about comic characters, video games about comic book characters, action figures of comic book characters had always been massive hits. the main thing that held them back from dominating the box office was that they simply couldn't make them very well. and you could generally lump in the over-the-top action movies in that category too.

superman and superman 2 were both big commercial hits. star wars and indiana jones blockbuster action movies dominated when they came out. batman was #1 in 1989. batman returns was #3 in 1992, ahead of A Few Good Men. jurassic park was the biggest movie of all time when it came out. batman forever was #2 only behind toy story in 1995. independence day/mission impossible were huge. men in black and jurassic park 2 massively outdid good will hunting.

that category of movie has always been uber popular, they're just able to make them a lot better now.

people aren't going to see Marvel films because "oh well, that's whats out, may as well." no. people have always had the appe e for these movies and for once the supply is meeting the demand

[midnightpulp]

the trend to superhero movies was inevitable as the technology allowed for it. the market was always there. comic books, animated shows about comic characters, video games about comic book characters, action figures of comic book characters had always been massive hits. the main thing that held them back from dominating the box office was that they simply couldn't make them very well. and you could generally lump in the over-the-top action movies in that category too.

superman and superman 2 were both big commercial hits. star wars and indiana jones blockbuster action movies dominated when they came out. batman was #1 in 1989. batman returns was #3 in 1992, ahead of A Few Good Men. jurassic park was the biggest movie of all time when it came out. batman forever was #2 only behind toy story in 1995. independence day/mission impossible were huge. men in black and jurassic park 2 massively outdid good will hunting.

that category of movie has always been uber popular, they're just able to make them a lot better now.

people aren't going to see Marvel films because "oh well, that's whats out, may as well." no. people have always had the appe e for these movies and for once the supply is meeting the demand

Yeah, but people don't have the appe e for anything else. Back to School made 206 million in 1986 (adjusting for inflation). You're lucky if a live action comedy breaks a 100 million today. And a live action comedy that starred a senior citizen comic would have zero chance at being a box office hit. My other problem with the public's insatiable appe e for property based (Star Wars, comic book movies, sequels to established properties, like Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious) action films is that it prevents Hollywood from taking risks on original ideas. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Predator, Alien, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (at one time, an original property) wouldn't be made today with the same level of budget and care, and would likely be relegated to Netflix's defacto B-movie section, along with the most recent Steven Seagal and Dolph Lundgren movies.

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.

[SpursforSix]

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.

I think this is a major part of the problem you alluded to with music today. There's a formula in place for these labels to crank out hip hop and pretty much know it will make a return. No reason to spend money to take a chance on something different.

[spurraider21]

Yeah, but people don't have the appe e for anything else. Back to School made 206 million in 1986 (adjusting for inflation). You're lucky if a live action comedy breaks a 100 million today. And a live action comedy that starred a senior citizen comic would have zero chance at being a box office hit. My other problem with the public's insatiable appe e for property based (Star Wars, comic book movies, sequels to established properties, like Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious) action films is that it prevents Hollywood from taking risks on original ideas. Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Terminator, Predator, Alien, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (at one time, an original property) wouldn't be made today with the same level of budget and care, and would likely be relegated to Netflix's defacto B-movie section, along with the most recent Steven Segal and Dolph Lundgren movies.

This is an industry I'm more than familiar with, and Hollywood will not take a chance on anything that requires the semblance of a budget unless it was based on a successful property of some sort (old tv show, book, comic book, or biography etc). It's a logical business decision considering the risk involved with how big the budgets are, but Hollywood will respond to the market, and it speaks to the general public's lack of open-mindedness that they won't patronize any other kind of big budget extravaganza unless it features a anthropomorphic eggplant wearing a big glove or a guy in a cat suit. I don't get it. Most of these movies aren't even competently written or directed. The only one I felt was clever was Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (haven't seen Vol 1.) Ant-Man had some interesting set-pieces, to be fair.

live action comedies are almost never box office smashes anyway. the highest grossing live action comedy ever was hangover 2 and that was in 2011. i dont think thats a great barometer.

i agree that there is a tendency to use licensed material... but that's because the stakes are monstrous. as i said, modern technology has really allowed this genre of movie to flourish, but with that comes increased cost. you cant get away with ty visuals like superman did, or the hulk tv show anymore because you're no longer the only show in town. you have to compete with the awesome production quality of the MCU. who is going to give you hundreds of millions in budget to make a superhero movie with a character that nobody had heard of?

but that's more tied to the comic/hero genre. in the action genre, they did so with avatar and it was the biggest commercial success of all time.

specifically in the super hero genre, yes, there is a lot less of that. off the top of my head, last major unlicensed character i can remember was Han , and that movie performed pretty well. but the star power of Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and to a lesser degree, Jason Bateman is a reason people went for it. i think upgrade was a great movie, probably better than venom. but it didnt perform as well. alita battle angel doesnt look that good to me, but it will likely smash the box office too

[boutons_deux]

The $Bs are in the child/teen market, so they crank out 100s of "commercial" movies that are cartoonishly CGI, really just "science fiction", from start to finish.

[midnightpulp]

live action comedies are almost never box office smashes anyway. the highest grossing live action comedy ever was hangover 2 and that was in 2011. i dont think thats a great barometer.

i agree that there is a tendency to use licensed material... but that's because the stakes are monstrous. as i said, modern technology has really allowed this genre of movie to flourish, but with that comes increased cost. you cant get away with ty visuals like superman did, or the hulk tv show anymore because you're no longer the only show in town. you have to compete with the awesome production quality of the MCU. who is going to give you hundreds of millions in budget to make a superhero movie with a character that nobody had heard of?

but that's more tied to the comic/hero genre. in the action genre, they did so with avatar and it was the biggest commercial success of all time. alita battle angel doesnt look that good to me, but it will likely smash the box office too

specifically in the super hero genre, yes, there is a lot less of that. off the top of my head, last major unlicensed character i can remember was Han , and that movie performed pretty well. but the star power of Will Smith, Charlize Theron, and to a lesser degree, Jason Bateman is a reason people went for it.

They used to be. Adjust for inflation. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly...yr=1987&p=.htm

Why does the public need to hear of the character (or property) beforehand? At one time, Independence Day was the most expensive film ever made. Not based off a property, Will Smith wasn't a mega-star, and Emmerich didn't have the name recognition like Spielberg or Lucas. I'm not saying Independence Day was necessarily good, but it shows Hollywood at least had some imagination in developing big budget original material. Looking back further, Total Recall (original property) had a 65 million dollar budget in 1990 dollars. Of course Arnie was attached, but even mega stars can't carry films today unless it's an established property. I think the movie going public has just gotten complacent.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and there isn't a tendency to use licensed material (whether that be comic book, novel, television show, biography, or even news articles), it pretty much dominates Hollywood's business model at the moment. The only exceptions are the occasional horror movie that breaks through to become a surprise hit, and Hollywood doesn't mind taking more risks with the horror genre since they can often be shot cheaply, especially supernatural horror films.

[Spurminator]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more compe ion, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

[SpursforSix]

dp

[SpursforSix]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more compe ion, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

This is a good point. I don't go to the movies much at all but if I do, it's usually to see something like a SH or action movie over a drama or comedy that I can watch at home in a few months.

[Chucho]

Comedy will never be a major draw again but I think it's more than just audience appe es, comedy is probably the most subjective of all genres in regard to how "good"/"funny" it is and also depends on the times. Some things are funny to some and aren't to others.

Another thing is there aren't many funny actors today compared to the glut of talent there was in the days of theatrical comedies being big. They're are some great stand ups right now but not a whole lot of stand ups that can act.

Look at it this way, we were getting a steady stream of legendary standups and comedic actors in the late 70's thru the early 90's- Pryor, Murphy, Steve Martin, Rodney Dangerfield, Murray, Akroyd, Candy, Farley, Chevy Chase, Mel Brooks, Monty Python and even Tom Hanks and so many others that there was a massive volume of comedies of high quality for a long period of time.

Recently, we've seen one comedian/comedy actor (and their associates) lead the pack for awhile and then fade away and kind of taking the genre with them. I'd say it started with Sandler in the late 90s to the mid 00s, we saw the rise of the Frat pack with Old School and everyone has faded basically sans Will Ferrell, then we saw the Seth Rogan rise and Melissa McCarthy was hot for a moment.

The only comedian who has been consistent throughout this entire century is Will Ferrell and his stuff is usually high quality as well. But none of the previously mentioned names that had dominant times of box office success aren't as thick and rich as the 70s-90s material. I'd say Kevin Smith stuff is high quality and consistent but not the volume isn't there, but that's what has made his stuff age well too.

Throw in the industry wide issue of no original ideas and you can see why comedy isn't as great as it can be.

[spurraider21]

When looking at movie trends you have to also look at the proliferation of alternate forms of entertainment. In 1986, video entertainment was limited to television or movie theaters.

Now we can watch video on our computers, our phones, our tablets... and we have a ton of new options on the TV screen with streaming services and improvements in original cable series and films. So theaters have a lot more compe ion, and it stands to reason that the types of movies that work best on a giant screen (action/superheroes) would have an incredible advantage.

hadn't really considered this angle either. makes sense upon first thought tbh.

[Chris]

Trump won't pull the trigger on what's really necessary to control drug prices: Regulation and price caps.

Approving manufacturing of more generics doesn't do because Big Pharma works with health care providers and insurance companies to get their drugs as the ones doctors prescribe. Health care providers and insurance companies have no problem with this because the margins are great for the former and the latter can use the 6000.00 per bottle blood pressure medication grandpa takes every month as an excuse to raise premiums. Drug companies also know they have an open tap via Medicare and Medicaid, so they arbitrarily set high prices knowing it'll be subsidized by the tax payer.

"From 2017-18...saved customers a staggering 26 billion!"

"Staggering"

There's 300 million insured Americans, so this "more generics" strategy has saved the individual American about 8.00 per month. Staggering, indeed.

If you read the article they are calling for transparency within the hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies requiring them to disclose real prices to patients to drive costs down. I'm not sure why you are ting on generic drugs in an open market. The single largest decline in drug prices in 46 years is substantial whether or not you hate Trump.

[Chris]

Too bad they've been in office two years and having battled yet tbh

Too bad you never read anything tbh

[Winehole23]

Lower drug prices are nice, hopefully the good will of pharmaceutical firms continues. Price transparency would be nice too, but that's a sticky wicket.

[Winehole23]

You can't control healthcare costs without controlling the costs.

[Avant]

Few people really understand had to build the right insurance package it takes today if you are providing for yourself.

[DMC]

I been to australia niga and didnt see none of that. You must be in a real dump tbqh

Cuba tbqh has one of the most efficient cancer treatments in the world. And doesnt cost a dime to individuals tbqh (cubans that is as foreigns im sure have to pay and tightly so)

If I get sick im going to the island

I've seen their cancer treatment in Cuba and it is very efficient. They put a bunch of people in a boat and they die before they get to the United States

[DMC]

You can't control healthcare costs without controlling the costs.

That's profound. I'm surprised AOC hasn't latched onto that one.

[Winehole23]

That's profound. I'm surprised AOC hasn't latched onto that one.

Have you got a better idea?

[midnightpulp]

If you read the article they are calling for transparency within the hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies requiring them to disclose real prices to patients to drive costs down. I'm not sure why you are ting on generic drugs in an open market. The single largest decline in drug prices in 46 years is substantialwhether or not you hate Trump.

Per their own claim that they seem to be celebrating, this strategy of theirs has saved Americans a "staggering" 26 billion on the cost of medicines over the fiscal year. I just looked at some more numbers. Doctors write 4.5 billion scripts each year. This equals Americans saving a little over 5.00 on each bottle of medicine. When you consider the on paper price of many these drugs can range from 50.00 to 5000.00, that isn't . Another graph. I don't see any "lowest decline on prices in 46 years" here (or in my next graph):



For Trump to really earn the pat on the back he craves, he's going to have to implement policy that cuts brand name prices by about 60%, which will have kept pace with inflation.



When can all be optimistic about the lower prices of generics (that declined in price well before Trump took office), but I've explained to you that the big brand name players basically monopolize the market through their cronyism with hospitals and insurance companies. If generics were really spooking the big players, we'd see their prices come down, but they're only increasing. Furthermore, if generic brands were to get more market penetration, you can bet your bottom dollar they would raise prices to just below levels of the brand names (the compe ion argument doesn't work here since there are very few generic drug manufacturers). I posted an article where a CEO of a generic manufacturer did just that.

Regulation and price caps are the only answer.