>Move your argument to 1940 and make it about the prospect for future treatments for heart disease to see how ridiculous it is to suggest that only the wealthy would have access to these medical technologies.
Actually only the wealthy have access for heart disease even know. Vast masses in developing and third world countries don't have access to such treatments.
Treatments become far far cheaper in the 3rd world. Healthcare as a service profession generally charges what people are willing to pay. So, in India treatment is still available but expensive even if the same prices would practically be free in the US. Note: A 5000 Indian Rupee income equals ~81 US Dollar/month income.
> Wealthy dynasties would continue to acquire wealth (because wealth builds more wealth), while one of the current rebalancing mechanisms (people dying without heirs) would be significantly reduced or even completely disappear.
Which means that in the context of this conversation, "wealthy" means the extremely wealthy members of society (the 1%).
If you define "wealthy" as meaning anyone living in the developed world, then maybe this is true. In the context of this conversation though, medical technologies are available to broad swathes of society. In countries with socialised medical systems, heart disease treatment which is close to the forefront of medical developments is available to everyone, regardless of means.
Extreme wealth will buy you better medical treatment, but only marginally. You can afford more experienced surgeons and the latest machinery and drugs, but within 5 years that machinery drugs will be widely available.
> the extremely wealthy members of society (the 1%).
Not to be that guy, but if "society" is defined as "humanity", as it should be imo when it comes to human health, all of us in first world are the 1%.
Edit: "To make it into the richest 1 percent globally, all you need is an income of around $34,000, according to World Bank economist Branko Milanovic. The average family in the United States has more than three times the income of those living in poverty in America, and nearly 50 times that of the world's poorest. Many of America's 99 percenters, and the West's, are really 1 percenters on a global level."
You're distorting my meaning and trying to make this conversation thread about something that it isn't. The thread started with a discussion of healthcare advances as a means of enabling wealthy family dynasties to grow their wealth while the rest of us didn't have access to that technology. It was rightly pointed out that healthcare advances (excluding specialised labour intensive surgeries) have consistently quickly become available to the majority of people within a country.
Yes, you can always point out that elsewhere in the world people are living in extreme poverty. It's tragic, but if you try and skew every debate on inequality towards this fact you will never get anywhere. It's perfectly reasonable to have two discussions - one, to discuss the great inequalities of our global capitalist system, and a second to discuss the relative wealth equality within individual countries or countries of comparitive wealth. This comment thread was started as the second type of discussion.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds like you're saying "inequality is only important insofar as it affects me".
Advances in technology (including healthcare) are usually bankrolled by the wealthy - wealthy people and corporations. The middle class doesn't pool together a billion dollars to research drugs for heart disease. University research is funded by wealthy benefactors, grants (in turn funded by wealthy benefactors), Government money (funded by taxes, a disproportionate % paid by the wealthy) and so forth. It seems fair to me that they'd get first dibs.
We're all trying to grow our dynasties, that's why we have kids. It's not inherently evil.
Unless you are throwing in history and including all of those Roman senators who received what is by todays standards practically nonexistent medical care (I think that doing that would be a mistake, for reasons that should be obvious), then it is somewhere around 10-15% of the world's population that lives in developed countries. This is before we even consider that many developing countries have functional healthcare systems.
The population of Germany alone accounts for more than 1% of all currently living humans.
In addition to the sibling comments I'll also point out that in this context of wealthy family dynasties, we're talking about far fewer than 1 in 100 people. "1%" is just the catchy branding.
Actually only the wealthy have access for heart disease even know. Vast masses in developing and third world countries don't have access to such treatments.