No. CERN is a nation-independent agency in Switzerland funded by "member states". It is not an agency of a government.
This is how you are arguing this isn't the result of governments?!?
Here's the member states.
Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Austria (1959), Spain (1961-1969, re-joined 1983), Portugal (1985), Finland (1991), Poland (1991), Czechoslovak Republic (1992), Hungary (1992), Bulgaria (1999), Israel (2014), Romania (2016) and Serbia (2019). The Czech Republic, and Slovak Republic
Those are governments.
You can't even remember your posts versus mine.
I really can't... but fortunately, I know how to work a scroll wheel; which seems more than you are capable of.
What are you now pretended I asserted was said by one of us but actually said by another? Feel encouraged to list post number.
Done. You don't know the difference between some layers of a networking protocol stack and the internet. And you still don't know what you're talking about.
Yes. I also know the difference between
I addressed that in post #363
"You then follow that claim with a long explanation on how the internet is founded on government-funded projects.
You are also being pedantic given the real thrust of the post you are responding to."
This is a semantic argument, and thereby a logical fallacy.
Net costs go up because the income from premiums, co-pays, and deductibles goes away.
Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles are "costs" already.
So the cost of the medical insurance program overall GOES UP. "
Done. You don't know the difference between costs and costs to a some portion of the medical system.
You are arguing that it doesn't really go up on a cost to society basis, because the nation as a whole pays, but that's only true if people don't demand more services because they're free to them (but not to the nation). This is basic macro economics. Unless the service level to individuals goes down, the cost of medical care per individual will go up.
There are so many falsehoods in that little sub-paragraph.
Some things that can lower overall costs without lowering services.
1) That layoff you say will happen.
2) That loss of per-person income you say will happen.
3) Better prices on, for example, drugs and products, as we see in the non-US first-world.
4) A movement from more expensive services (like treating someone in renal failure) to less expensive services (like treatment to prevent renal failure).
5) Economy of scale resulting from better utilization.
And yes, utilization can go down... as people get preventative care.
That whole "If you make it cheaper more people will use it" is an assault on the poor and form of "us vs them" prejudice.
Germany doesn't have half the per-capita costs we do because they use half the services.
No matter where you set the costs to make a given income "have skin in the game to limit but not block access to care", people above that income will consume as much as they feel like and people below that will be denied care.
But even if, despite all of that, costs did go up. OK. That's fine with me. I'm tired of taxes that go into things useless to the population at large. Easing human suffering is about the best use of my tax dollar I can think of because I am not a monster of some sort.
Not to mention the economic boosts to a healthier population.
Where does that money go to?
Remember, you have fewer employees (your claim) and each employee makes less (your claim).
So if more is being paid, where does it go?!?
Do you even math bro?
