malaph

joined 1 year ago
[–] malaph@infosec.pub -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm actually not really. Here's at least a logical arguments one could make.

Healthcare is a scarce resource like all things. Making it universal doesn't exempt it from that fact. Removing it from a competitive market will likely make it more expensive and prevent innovations which will keep it affordable. Competitive markets drive efficiency.

Government provided healthcare rations service availability based on criteria they set. A private system rations availability based on the indivual's ability to afford the service. If people can afford the service additional capacity can be created with that money. Under a government system extremely long wait times are the norm .. With health this may mean late diagnosis of cancer and other suboptimal outcomes.

People are generally more wealthy in the later years of their lives and also in need of more care. Under a public system the costs associated with an aging population will be disproportionately placed on younger people who still pay taxes in their prime earning years. With the number of working people constantly decreasing when compared to the number of retired baby boomers this is unsustainable under a public system.

At the end of the day I think free markets apply poorly to healthcare because you have no ability to comparison shop during a medical emergency. Also US seems to have the worst mix of regulated private healthcare which has kept costs the highest of any country. I do think most social democratic countries are basically screwed over the next 20 years with the demographics being what they are.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

All aviation is 1.9% .. Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Everything is profitable if you raise prices. In a way you're just offsetting a certain segment of the populations transportation costs to everyone else under that system. Maybe you could privatize the roads too and use the tolls to fund more buses which operate at a profit. Its fun think of insane libertarian free marker solutions to such problems :) Cars might be less appealing if people had to pay the associated infrastructure costs on a per km basis.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If you really want to you can structure your life in a way where food is close to home.. did that through college. Paid for cabs for groceries .. Walked and used transit or my bike. Was pretty miserable in Canadian winters and not very convienent. Plus pretty expensive.. You can do it. Or just admit you like cars :) as long as most people secretly actually like cars and use them then society will be structured in a way to accommodate that. The world's a big place and in order to have most of the things you need really close isn't really entirely realistic.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub -2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

You can agree with some principles of a work and reject others. What parts of her philosophy do you find to be lunacy?

[–] malaph@infosec.pub -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It speaks against a system where political favour dictates your success as a producer over your ability to compete. If you feel land owners and intellectual property owners are gate keepers in a society where your can have your own ideas and buy your own property I don't know what to say.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

Well two of probably a dozen or more requirements a week right? Your solution is "pay someone else with a vehicle" and after a certain number of times that makes less sense than just having a vehicle. Also imagine being a single mom who works with like 5 kids.. Trying to manage that with paying for cabs or trying to use a bus..

For non urban people like me you unfortunely need a vehicle to get everything. I vastly prefer public transport if I'm going into a major city because parking is a major inconvience and expense.

Public transport in areas with low population density is unprofitable and poor service .. Too few vehicles so long waits between pickups. My town has literally a single cab .. Better be the first person to call if you need a ride to work ..

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point probably everyone has had omicron or one of the later less harmful variants. The trend of becoming more transmissible and less harmful is normal for corona viruses. Im with most people in being apprehensive about getting additional boosters. Why do you feel there's a real danger?

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 22 points 1 year ago (44 children)

There's at least a grain of truth in that book. Try starting a business or producing something.

Look at domestic attempts to mine lithium or building semiconductor plants. Try building anything here.

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.”

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Personal transport also has massive benefits. Try transporting a few sheets of drywall on public transport. Try moving a sick person to the hospital. Try living outside of an urban centre..

view more: ‹ prev next ›