201–210 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could it save you money? 18 Trillion is the entire US GDP. It's literally the cost of all our products made annually in the US combined. edit: oops. Its 18 trillion over a decade. So 10% our GDP.
so, 7% less of our gdp than we spend on healthcare right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you're being tongue in cheek when you make that comment, but one of the more important realizations a person can make is that their personal opinions are biased. This is however, a completely different question to how correct their opinion is. Judging that is a whole different ball-game.
Do it one better and realize even your own culture is biased and largely arbitrary and then you will really have a broadened POV.
Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do it one better and realize even your own culture is biased and largely arbitrary and then you will really have a broadened POV.
I don't subscribe to the notion that all cultural values are of equal value, or are even worthy of respect. Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do it one better and realize even your own culture is biased and largely arbitrary and then you will really have a broadened POV.
I don't subscribe to the notion that all cultural values are of equal value, or are even worthy of respect. Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would bet the median taxpayer would see their costs go up. This is likely true, but I also expect it would be worth it in terms of social stability and progress. It's okay if your costs go up if you also get better health and education out of the deal, so earning power also goes up.
Every voter gets to decide if they find that okay. Your opinion isn't really operative.
As for what every voter gets - a pull at a lever with minimal connection to person and no connection to policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't subscribe to the notion that all cultural values are of equal value, or are even worthy of respect. Just that people tend to not see bias when it agrees with their personal notion of truth.
How can you be tolerant of culture without being tolerant of cultural values?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This line of argument really needs to be toned down. While it's obviously true that papers like the WSJ, NYT, WashPo, etc. have influential partisan editorial boards, their newsrooms are filled with reporters and editors of various political leanings. More importantly, these reporters are among the best in the country and do their very best to find and report the truth in an unbiased fashion. That's what makes these…
This article turned me off the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-prop... 18 Trillion -- yikes! It's not until the 5th paragraph that we find out that this includes health insurance and that me and my employer wouldn't have to shell out for that anymore. Does it save me money overall? A question not asked. But they do make a big deal about that number and how alarmed they are at it, even if…
But vice/heavy and sometimes wired even still have content that I'd throw $4/mo at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some of those reporters are contracted to write five or even 10 posts per day. It's not like a NYT or WSJ reporter spending three weeks or three months on one story. Vice doesn't necessarily fall out of that category either. Smack dab in the middle is the statement: "I still had outstanding questions, which I asked Apple ... The company has not yet responded." The number of times I've read a developing story that h…
I wrote this article, I gave Apple 18 hours to respond. The article has now been out for four hours or so, and it's been close to 24 hours since I originally asked them. Apple RARELY responds to press inquiries and the only time it has reliably spoken to the press was during the recent encryption battle and that's because it desperately needed the public to understand its argument. I understand what you're getting at…
24 hours isn't terribly long, though knowing how fast Apple responds, if you don't get one in 12, then you probably won't get one in 72 either. For other companies though, what is a general grace period before moving forward with publication?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so, 7% less of our gdp than we spend on healthcare right now.
Interesting. Hmm maybe we should look into centrally planning other industries too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Putting it simply, the amount that you pay would be moved from a line item on your pay slip called "private health insurance" paid to Aetna or whoever, to a line item called "medicare contribution" or "national health service contribution" paid to the IRS. On the back end, rather than Aetna shelling out money to the hospital so that you can get treated for free or cheaply, the government would do so - just like it al…
One thing I haven't seen mentioned: how do you design an organization that manages and efficiently allocates $3-4 trillion in spending across the country? Has it been done before? If so, has such an organization been legislated into existence? Meanwhile, Aetna already insures more people than many countries, so it isn't clear what we'd be getting that we aren't already. I'm curious how single payer will help in the U…
Insurance is one of the things that a government can be very good at. It's not an area of great innovation, so the benefit of having it be a free market is relatively limited, and negotiation leverage is very important, so size is very beneficial. The natural tendency of the private insurers has been to consolidate and to look more and more like Medicare in terms of size. Except they also have a profit mandate, whereas Medicare doesn't, so they take a percentage of all spending and suck it out of the system. That portion isn't helpful to the users of the system.