People talk about the US healthcare system as if it's a choice between capitalism and socialism.
It's a false dichotomy. The Americans already spend as much public money on healthcare per capita as single payer systems like Canada or the UK.
In a sense, the insurance industry exists in part because the state solution is a failed one.
Some people claim that the United States hasn't tried a state solution and that's why things are so bad. That's a lie. If they chose not to pursue a state solution then they wouldn't be spending as much public money as they are. They have a state based solution that's incompetent.
Then people find it ironic that in spite of their poor system now they don't trust the government to implement a healthcare system for everyone. The fact that the state based system is so broken doesn't seem to be at all ironic that people don't trust the state to do the thing they're currently failing to do.
People might argue that government involvement in healthcare isn't axiomatically inefficient and just is by how the US government has chosen to do it, which is self-evidently true based on the fact that I'm not comparing the United States to a perfect system I am comparing the United States to other countries in the anglosphere which have single-payer healthcare for comparable or even lower amounts of money than the United States gets virtually nothing for. However, the proof in the pudding is in the eating, the reason that the US government is incompetent at healthcare is immaterial next to the fact that they are in fact incompetent at healthcare.
Some people might say that it's because of political partisanship, but the last major piece of healthcare legislation occurred when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress and thus could pass any piece of legislation they wanted. What they chose to pass was more spending and no improvement to healthcare accessibility.
The idea that partisanship might block reforms even during super majorities? The answer is that it doesn't. At that point, one party is fully in charge. Now it's true that poorly implemented or unpopular reforms could be easily moved back in the next political session where the other party was in charge, but that assumes that they will be poorly implemented or unpopular. As an example, in spite of the issues with healthcare in canada, it is considered a third rail that no political party, even the far right populist party The People's party of Canada, is remotely willing to discuss ending it. If a political party with a supermajority and majorities and the presidency and the supreme Court where to implement something that immediately had a tangible improvement on outcomes for people, it would just become the way things are done.
I think that if anything, the government really does a great job of avoiding all blame. They they act with extreme incompetence, and extreme corruption, and they are the ones who ultimately make the decision about what happens but they get to blame lobbyists as if congressman and senators don't have any agency of their own, they just do whatever they're told by lobbyists.
People want to pretend lobbyists only exist in the United States, and they want to act like fragmentation only exists in the United States. Neither of these are true of course, but they provide easy scapegoats to incompetent lawmakers. For people who claim that it isn't possible to have the federal government fund a program that is managed by the states, they once again only need look to Canada, whose public healthcare program is funded by the federal government and implemented by the provinces, and although imperfect provides universal health Care in every province and territory.
Medicare, Medicaid, and VA are limited in scope which is why not everyone gets access to them. However, if Medicare was so great then it could achieve its mission with a fraction of its budget and people would go "oh, we have all this money left over we could implement single-payer healthcare" but instead these extremely limited programs are constantly complaining that they're underfunded. Notably, the Swiss hybrid system actually results in record low public expenditure on healthcare across Europe.
All of these realities based on comparative analysis with other countries act as a tactical nuke, more or less destroying every argument that lets the US government avoid blame for the current situation in healthcare.
It's also a kill shot to arguments saying the problem with the US healthcare is but they aren't willing to pay for something that is socialism. The failures of private insurance are in fact a direct result of the failures of government to implement effective public health Care with the money that they already have.
So we are perfectly clear here, if the government legalizes something, and they make something tax deductible, and massively funds something, then it is responsible for that thing. If instead of healthcare we were talking about crack cocaine, we wouldn't be talking about the individual people selling crack cocaine we would be asking why the government has set up a system like that.
The US has a system that protects tens of millions at a cost that should protect hundreds of millions. What is the human cost of leaving hundreds of millions of people without healthcare so we can give tens of millions of people healthcare? Clearly the real issue is that the government needs to fix their shit.
It's a false dichotomy. The Americans already spend as much public money on healthcare per capita as single payer systems like Canada or the UK.
In a sense, the insurance industry exists in part because the state solution is a failed one.
Some people claim that the United States hasn't tried a state solution and that's why things are so bad. That's a lie. If they chose not to pursue a state solution then they wouldn't be spending as much public money as they are. They have a state based solution that's incompetent.
Then people find it ironic that in spite of their poor system now they don't trust the government to implement a healthcare system for everyone. The fact that the state based system is so broken doesn't seem to be at all ironic that people don't trust the state to do the thing they're currently failing to do.
People might argue that government involvement in healthcare isn't axiomatically inefficient and just is by how the US government has chosen to do it, which is self-evidently true based on the fact that I'm not comparing the United States to a perfect system I am comparing the United States to other countries in the anglosphere which have single-payer healthcare for comparable or even lower amounts of money than the United States gets virtually nothing for. However, the proof in the pudding is in the eating, the reason that the US government is incompetent at healthcare is immaterial next to the fact that they are in fact incompetent at healthcare.
Some people might say that it's because of political partisanship, but the last major piece of healthcare legislation occurred when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress and thus could pass any piece of legislation they wanted. What they chose to pass was more spending and no improvement to healthcare accessibility.
The idea that partisanship might block reforms even during super majorities? The answer is that it doesn't. At that point, one party is fully in charge. Now it's true that poorly implemented or unpopular reforms could be easily moved back in the next political session where the other party was in charge, but that assumes that they will be poorly implemented or unpopular. As an example, in spite of the issues with healthcare in canada, it is considered a third rail that no political party, even the far right populist party The People's party of Canada, is remotely willing to discuss ending it. If a political party with a supermajority and majorities and the presidency and the supreme Court where to implement something that immediately had a tangible improvement on outcomes for people, it would just become the way things are done.
I think that if anything, the government really does a great job of avoiding all blame. They they act with extreme incompetence, and extreme corruption, and they are the ones who ultimately make the decision about what happens but they get to blame lobbyists as if congressman and senators don't have any agency of their own, they just do whatever they're told by lobbyists.
People want to pretend lobbyists only exist in the United States, and they want to act like fragmentation only exists in the United States. Neither of these are true of course, but they provide easy scapegoats to incompetent lawmakers. For people who claim that it isn't possible to have the federal government fund a program that is managed by the states, they once again only need look to Canada, whose public healthcare program is funded by the federal government and implemented by the provinces, and although imperfect provides universal health Care in every province and territory.
Medicare, Medicaid, and VA are limited in scope which is why not everyone gets access to them. However, if Medicare was so great then it could achieve its mission with a fraction of its budget and people would go "oh, we have all this money left over we could implement single-payer healthcare" but instead these extremely limited programs are constantly complaining that they're underfunded. Notably, the Swiss hybrid system actually results in record low public expenditure on healthcare across Europe.
All of these realities based on comparative analysis with other countries act as a tactical nuke, more or less destroying every argument that lets the US government avoid blame for the current situation in healthcare.
It's also a kill shot to arguments saying the problem with the US healthcare is but they aren't willing to pay for something that is socialism. The failures of private insurance are in fact a direct result of the failures of government to implement effective public health Care with the money that they already have.
So we are perfectly clear here, if the government legalizes something, and they make something tax deductible, and massively funds something, then it is responsible for that thing. If instead of healthcare we were talking about crack cocaine, we wouldn't be talking about the individual people selling crack cocaine we would be asking why the government has set up a system like that.
The US has a system that protects tens of millions at a cost that should protect hundreds of millions. What is the human cost of leaving hundreds of millions of people without healthcare so we can give tens of millions of people healthcare? Clearly the real issue is that the government needs to fix their shit.
This summer I came to a different conclusion.
I've made a habit of going to going out with my son.
The first year he was alive it was too hot that summer. We read a lot instead, and there aren't many toddlers on the planet who have been read as many words as mine.
The second year, we went for walks in his stroller but he wasn't really mobile enough to go to a park for real, so we'd stop and swing on a swing now and again but not much else, and the focus was walking.
This year is the third year, and we've gone to the park from early spring until late fall. I got into the rhythm of going friday after work, twice or three times on Saturday, twice or three times on Sunday, and at least once on Monday. (Always once in the morning and once in the evening, and some days before supper and after supper)
I did this because I'm nuts and really think it's important to be getting outside like that and reading a ton and doing all these things, but I don't think everyone should hold themselves to the same standards I keep. However, one thing I eventually realized is that we basically had the park to ourselves. It wasn't just one park we went to, either. We went to several, and we almost always had them to ourselves.
We went on walking paths, had them to ourselves. We went to beaches, had them to ourselves.
I've called this phemonenon "living in ghost world". Walking around an empty world with no people, no parents, not even any kids.
I think people end up making the wrong arguments. I heard some people saying "Oh, parents don't have the money to do stuff with their kids", but I didn't spend a penny going to the park, walking on the walking trail, going to the beach (It wasn't anything fancy, just a rocky outcropping next to a creek you could sit on). These things were free, but nobody else was there. Sure, perhaps parents are working a lot, but I don't think most households have both parents working straight 12 or 16 hour days, there are such things as days off. You'd expect at least some parents would be able to spend an hour at the park.
I think it's devices.
I think after a long day's work, the parents sit on their phones, the kids sit on their tablets, and they just sit there consuming content. It's one of the few models that makes any sense to me. Even for parents who don't work (It isn't like welfare went away), why go outside when you can just slap a tablet in their hands and keep them quiet?
But the fact is, we are seeing the negative consequences of doing what everyone does. Parents have already built themselves up to whatever extent they will, but kids have not and if they don't get a chance to experience the world they'll head out not realizing there's an amazing creation just outside their door. If they aren't read to early, they won't have a chance to realize they have a grand cultural inheritance. If they aren't being taught letters and numbers early, then they'll lose the chance for their minds to wire themselves to these unintuitive concepts early. If they don't have morality taught to them early, they'll fall prey to the problems of liberal ideology (intended to apply to a state) becoming a totalizing ideology and the harm that causes.
I've made a habit of going to going out with my son.
The first year he was alive it was too hot that summer. We read a lot instead, and there aren't many toddlers on the planet who have been read as many words as mine.
The second year, we went for walks in his stroller but he wasn't really mobile enough to go to a park for real, so we'd stop and swing on a swing now and again but not much else, and the focus was walking.
This year is the third year, and we've gone to the park from early spring until late fall. I got into the rhythm of going friday after work, twice or three times on Saturday, twice or three times on Sunday, and at least once on Monday. (Always once in the morning and once in the evening, and some days before supper and after supper)
I did this because I'm nuts and really think it's important to be getting outside like that and reading a ton and doing all these things, but I don't think everyone should hold themselves to the same standards I keep. However, one thing I eventually realized is that we basically had the park to ourselves. It wasn't just one park we went to, either. We went to several, and we almost always had them to ourselves.
We went on walking paths, had them to ourselves. We went to beaches, had them to ourselves.
I've called this phemonenon "living in ghost world". Walking around an empty world with no people, no parents, not even any kids.
I think people end up making the wrong arguments. I heard some people saying "Oh, parents don't have the money to do stuff with their kids", but I didn't spend a penny going to the park, walking on the walking trail, going to the beach (It wasn't anything fancy, just a rocky outcropping next to a creek you could sit on). These things were free, but nobody else was there. Sure, perhaps parents are working a lot, but I don't think most households have both parents working straight 12 or 16 hour days, there are such things as days off. You'd expect at least some parents would be able to spend an hour at the park.
I think it's devices.
I think after a long day's work, the parents sit on their phones, the kids sit on their tablets, and they just sit there consuming content. It's one of the few models that makes any sense to me. Even for parents who don't work (It isn't like welfare went away), why go outside when you can just slap a tablet in their hands and keep them quiet?
But the fact is, we are seeing the negative consequences of doing what everyone does. Parents have already built themselves up to whatever extent they will, but kids have not and if they don't get a chance to experience the world they'll head out not realizing there's an amazing creation just outside their door. If they aren't read to early, they won't have a chance to realize they have a grand cultural inheritance. If they aren't being taught letters and numbers early, then they'll lose the chance for their minds to wire themselves to these unintuitive concepts early. If they don't have morality taught to them early, they'll fall prey to the problems of liberal ideology (intended to apply to a state) becoming a totalizing ideology and the harm that causes.
I'm just glad no former Marines were around or a real tragedy could have occurred. Thankfully nobody important got hurt (according to the state of New York at least).
With just a little more money they could lobby to have the laws of physics repealed.
I was sitting with my dad one day and we figured taking a dash-8 plane off the ground was probably about 5MW of energy. Good luck doing that with even 50 years from now technology, let alone today. You might be able to electrify light aircraft for short trips, but nothing commercial.
I was sitting with my dad one day and we figured taking a dash-8 plane off the ground was probably about 5MW of energy. Good luck doing that with even 50 years from now technology, let alone today. You might be able to electrify light aircraft for short trips, but nothing commercial.
State experts have confirmed that this is just what water smells like, stop being so homophobic all the time.
I had a LinkedIn until the trucker convoy. Once they leaked they leaked the information of the donors I realized I didn't want to be on big tech with my real name anymore.
The irony of one of the multi-millionaires of the world who specifically stuck her fat fingers into the political process hoping to tilt the scales complaining that someone else stuck his fingers into the political process hoping to tilt the scales is palpable. It isn't like Rosie O'Donnell is a coal miner. She's a c list celebrity.
I was incredulous, but then I saw "Seattle".
It really does remind you of some of those end of the world things, where when's the world doesn't end, most people just walk away but true believers keep on coming up with reasons why they got the math wrong or whatever.
It really does remind you of some of those end of the world things, where when's the world doesn't end, most people just walk away but true believers keep on coming up with reasons why they got the math wrong or whatever.
The "Biden was in meetings with important people" line was so stupid as to be self-defeating.
Everyone who has ever been in a meeting with important people has had the experience of either themselves or someone else in the meeting dozing off. It just happens. So literally being in a meeting with important people doesn't actually mean that you were contributing, and it doesn't mean you were in good form.
Everyone who has ever been in a meeting with important people has had the experience of either themselves or someone else in the meeting dozing off. It just happens. So literally being in a meeting with important people doesn't actually mean that you were contributing, and it doesn't mean you were in good form.
to Honda for having to take up the disgrace of being part of the French automaker Nissan. Hopefully Honda doesn't gain the levels of quality the French automaker is known for.
Truck kun in this case was western made truck and so did not ganbatte, trapping you forever in an isekai je nai.
Ironically, western truck kun should feel shame for their failure to achieve isekai praxis but because of western postmodern neomarxism just blames trains for the failure.
Deep down it knows something is wrong because it isn't living it's most authentic life even if it can't understand exactly why because it has never been taught that form of virtue. The gnawing feeling will leave western truck kun unfulfilled until it's dying day.
(This truck kun joke goes too hard. You thought it was a truck kun joke but it was me, DIO!)
Ironically, western truck kun should feel shame for their failure to achieve isekai praxis but because of western postmodern neomarxism just blames trains for the failure.
Deep down it knows something is wrong because it isn't living it's most authentic life even if it can't understand exactly why because it has never been taught that form of virtue. The gnawing feeling will leave western truck kun unfulfilled until it's dying day.
(This truck kun joke goes too hard. You thought it was a truck kun joke but it was me, DIO!)