There was a recent tweet from nvidia exec that in fact stated the exact opposite. Gist was that "we're big enough to get priority on memory, unlike some of our much smaller competitors".
There already are GPU boards on the market that have no video out port.
They're not very popular, because miners prefer hardware they can sell when mining boom becomes another hard crash and they have to care about efficiency.
When these cards don't end up in hands of gamers, and empty shelves drive the prices up in retail sector, it's a disaster for two gaming GPU companies.
Nvidia especially has invested a lot into getting PC gaming market to grow from a small actor well behind consoles in importance to the primary gaming platform in the world. And maintaining this status requires gaming PCs to remain price competitive and available to gamers.
Losing this means that gamers will just move away from gaming on PCs and use a much cheaper and much more available console for their gaming needs, and companies like Nvidia will once again be stuck as just OEMs for giants like Microsoft, working on razor thin margins.
Certainly. I literally prefaced my first post in this thread with "I think universal healthcare should be pushed through in US, but your arguments are bad, and here's why".
I'm not arguing against universal healthcare. I'm pointing out that arguments used are just too extreme, pushing well beyond reality into falsehoods. Which makes them very easy to debunk, by using social democracies that have universal healthcare as a data point at healthcare system that actually works and is one of the most efficient ones in the world while maintaining cutting edge survival rates for complex and expensive to treat illnesses such as various cancers.
Arguments used need to be far more realistic, and discuss actual, tangible benefits of universal healthcare, while taking care not to slide into extremes of "just how good universal care is". The whole "you get to keep your doctor" lie did more damage to the cause in US than much of right wing propaganda combined.
You talking about "support for minimum wage" among working class infers that working class care in a significant way about it. They do not. As long as immigration is controlled as to not significantly compete with it, they are salaried at rate significantly above minimum wage. This isn't me putting any words in your mouth. This is me addressing misconceptions you demonstrate. Remember, we're talking about political alliances, political parties, and things that such political parties advocate for to gain support of certain societal groups.
For example, you just stated with all seriousness that "employer paid healthcare is still an expense that limits how many people they will hire". This is something that is not considered sane thinking model even in social democracies like mine, because either employer pays for it through payments to the insurer, or through taxes. The money still needs to be paid. Even the most hard line lobbyists of employers group EK around here don't try this level of silliness when they lobby for tools to hire more people.
So I certainly agree that employers would prefer to deal with as few added costs of employment as possible. They're not social organisations, but for profit enterprises. And this is where far left stops, because the core tenet of far left thinking is class warfare. Employers are at war with their employees, and that's that.
In real world on the other hand, they also want efficient workforce, which means they want their workforce to be reasonably healthy. Especially considering the whole "infectious illness" aspect of reality and what it does in a collective of people interacting with each other. Which is why organised healthcare for factory workers was introduced as a concept by the factory owners originally, and why same people understand that providing reasonable health care for their workers benefits their bottom line as long as there isn't a massive oversupply of work force.
You're once again demonstrating the same far left assumptions, such as that legality of immigration has a significant impact on immigration's impact on working class, or that working class is on minimum wage.
Legality of immigration is all but irrelevant for working class. The fact that there is immigration in the first place is which both creates competition for jobs that would not be there otherwise and suppresses wages. Most industrial workers have healthcare provided by their employer. Most of them are not on the minimum wage but salaried at a significantly higher rate. More progressive tax would indeed help them, to an extent. However as industrial workers tend to be fairly well paid, they may get hit by progressive curve, so that is debatable. Here in Finland, industrial workers pay around 40% of their income as income tax due to progression for example.
I didn't make any kind of assumptions on your voting pattern. I merely pointed out that you appear to hold same misconceptions on what class is supported by whom as far left edge of US political spectrum.
Working class have a clear representation in Trump. There's absolutely no question about that. His entire "get production jobs back to US, stop immigration, lower taxes on producers so they can invest in US" platform is about as pro-working class as you can get in modern day. The only way you could even think otherwise is if you subscribe to thinking model that to be pro-working class, you have to be socialist or communist. Which is also a far left misconception.
I find this to be a gross oversimplification, found mainly in fart left edge of US political spectrum. Republicans are the party of the working class working for various production fields and winning this vote with policies aimed at making it easier to get production into US and limit immigration driving the wages of working class down. Democrats are distinctly hostile to these people, down to calling them "deplorables" in last election and openly supporting all of their main class enemies - immigrants and white collar intelligencia.
Democrats appear to be on the other hand the party of big business, who have shown clear support for Clinton in last elections in many non-production industries such as IT.
There's just a whole lot more to US party system and its alliance networks than just "evil christians doing the work of satan and republicans" caricature commonly painted by the same people who call working class "deplorables". Each party has it's own connections and alliances among various strata of society, and interestingly, it seems that our time is the time when many of these connections are shifting. Democrats used to be the party of working class just a couple of decades ago for example, while republicans where the big business party. That has flipped 180.
We live in interesting times when it comes to US politics. Two party system may lock out other parties - but it also causes the two big parties to keep adopting their platforms to various interests, often making friends among those that were their foes just a few decades ago.
Problem being that your average corporate intrusion is among the lines of "they got in because you had administrative account on default port for this server left on". Expensive tailored attacks are very rare in comparison. Pretty much every decent university lecture on the issue done by specialists will feature slides of such intrusions just to demonstrate how lax the weakest link in security actually was.
Benefit is that people who get through those holes are usually not well versed in economics, and ask for hilarious sums to undo the damage. That's another permanent fixture of such lectures. You have people who will manage to hit a company that has revenue in tens or hundreds of millions, do potential damage that would be measured in millions at the very least. Then ask for 500-ish USD to undo the damage and help you fix the problem they got in through. Not a joke - this is the reality of infosec professionals today.
The change that is coming with EU directive is that now perpetrators actually have something to use as a measuring stick on how valuable their intrusion is to the company, and adjust their pricing accordingly.
You appear to be unaware that this form of criminality is common today, and has been for at least a decade at this point.
You can find sources on this in any reasonable university level lecture on information security and crime. Security companies themselves often send people to hold such lectures, and they will literally provide you with screenshots of such intrusions and demands, which are extremely common, when they actually get bad enough to require hiring their experts to solve the underlying security problem.
The thing that is coming with new EU directive is the fact that it sets up stiff fines. Something utterly absent in the past.
The companies buy bitcoin because criminal actors demand payment in bitcoin. They demand payment in bitcoin because it enables much easier movement of funds outside the reach of the things that tend to work with law enforcement, such as banking system.
Remind yourself what currency overwhelming majority of ransomware asks for as a good example of this.
It's likely to go back up sometime around may 2018. Reason for this is massive increase in value of targeted attacks on large organisations, and monetization mechanism of these attacks involving bitcoin.
Basically the new directive will now have EU fine companies up to 5% of their yearly revenue if they have a breach that puts private information at risk and they are found not to have done reasonable precautions to prevent such breach from occurring. That means that where the old ransom for such events was commonly fairly low (often being only 3-4 digits in EUR worth of bitcoin), same criminal actors now actually have a benchmark at what level they can price their successful breach. So now the negotiations between the criminal actors and company will look more like "your yearly revenue is this much, you haven't done your due diligence, we've breached your system and got a lot of private information. Pay us 3% of your monthly revenue and this will go away".
That means many more bitcoins will be needed for paying these criminal actors off, and that means more demand for bitcoin as companies will have to ramp up buying them to have ability to make the pay off.
Problem being that many platforms also belong to the same companies. Google for example controls both the most popular phone OS and the most popular desktop browser.
AdNauseam is not allowed on Chrome, and its functionality is not allowed on Android either.
Problem being that parties that push for this enter parliament because populace votes for them. And populace votes for them because the wealthy don't use the public system all that much, and use private one.
So it's not the "right wing" problem. Our "right wing party" is left of US democratic party. It's the society splitting by class lines - problem. And US has a much harsher culture when it comes to splitting society by class and each class voting only for it own benefits, ignoring the whole. So to sell the universal public healthcare in US, the discussion will have to talk about pros and cons for everyone, in an honest way. Because the majority of the populace will benefit from universal healthcare. And because this discussion will inoculate the system from subversion such as one occurring around the Nordics right now for at least two generations.
Gotta say, "my healthcare is better than yours" was a true cherry on the cake. I guess you subscribe to belief that when you go retard, you may as well go full retard.
I pay for every doctor visit I do in Finland, with universal public healthcare, up to a certain annually reset maximum, at which point the national pensions organisation KELA will pay 100% of the rest afaik. I never needed any such services to such a costly extent as to hit the maximum. Same party also pays for a portion of medical purchases, after a certain annual minimum is fully paid by me. They also make decisions such as which medicines are partially paid for by them, to what extent, and for which illnesses. If your illness is not deemed "correct for this medication", even if medication is found helpful by the doctor, you pay for it in full. A very contentious issue for many patients organisations who lobby for new medications to be accepted on the list for their illness.
And you cannot even declare private bankruptcy here, as the private bankruptcy doesn't exist in the law. Which caused a severe issue with suicide after the economy crash of early 1990s. Instead you're could spend your entire life on the hook for debts in an endless debt spiral. I know they introduced some changes to it so that one failed business doesn't ruin your finances for life, but there's still no "private bankruptcy". We have a Nordic attitude to debt in general, where you are expected to pay what you owe. That's why we have such a major culture clash between North and South in Europe in relation to Greek debt crisis. We expect them to pay back their debts in full, just like we expect our own to pay back their debts in full.
It depends a lot on the system. In Nordic system, where you have parallel private and public health care, what happens is that private healthcare gets to skim the rich and easy cases off the top, and dump the rest on the public system. Which results in massively overloaded public system which gets all the difficult and expensive cases, resulting in lowered quality of care as doctors who have a choice go to private sector.
This is a major problem across Nordics right now. Sweden is so bad at this point, that you have people coming to Finland for quality-critical deeply specialized things like childbirth. Rest of us are a decade or two behind them, which is why our public system at hospital level (specialized care) is still of generally high quality, while the local (i.e. health clinic) is in a downward spiral. I.e. one of the best cancer survival rates in the world, one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and so on, because these things remain in high demand, cannot be easily delivered by private sector that finds it most profitable to treat rich with runny noses. A caricature, but it delivers the correct message in this case. In clinic, it may literally take you days just to get to see a doctor, even after you get sick, because of how badly clogged public system is at this point.
And the worst part is that private care does slowly go up in price, even when public option is available. It's just that we are at the start of the progression, while US is much further down the line. Specialized care in private sector is a small business, and while private companies are clearly lobbying hard for more universal payer system payments to private sector (hence allowing less wealthy people to get into the private system) and we have a major legislative package on the topic that has been on and off in parliamentary limbo for something close to decade at this point. The issue is incredibly explosive and painful, that even the main party pushing for defunding public care and shifting to private, that is currently the most popular party in the country simply cannot push the changes through the parliament. The rejection from the rest of the nation is simply too strong.
You really need to read the second to last paragraph:
>That is why your desperate attempt to build a caricature out of my arguments so you can easily debunk them is not constructive. You're the one who needs to win hearts and minds to get universal healthcare to pass in US. I already have it and I wholeheartedly support it for US, so strawmanning my points on the negatives of the system will not convince anyone who isn't already on your side, and will most certainly alienate those that aren't, because they can actually read my points, and see that you're not actually addressing them.
Norway due to its unique economics makes for a very bad example for anything outside it. Literally worldwide, it's the only state that operates the way it does.
My native Finland is much closer to your typical Nordic system. We actually have severe money problems within the system, and can't just go the way of Norway and offer better salaries to vacuum doctors and nurses from other Nordic countries. Notably, this is the issue that Finland, Sweden and Denmark are facing right now - Norway can simply pay far better wages due to its unique economic structures, which is causing brain drain across its neighbours.
The Grand Experiment in Finland right now is essentially the same that crushed the quality of universal healthcare in Sweden about a decade ago to the point where people in Sweden now come here to Finland to do quality-critical things like childbirth. Population average ages and is less healthy due to problems like obesity. That means more demand. At the same time, doctors and nurses are more slowly becoming changing to female dominated field, and math on that one is brutal. Female doctor will on average do about 2/3 of work hours of a male doctor, typically due to wanting to have multi-year maternity leave and not wanting to do as much overtime.
So you have a classic "more demand, less supply" problem that keeps growing slowly, boiling the frog. Private sector is increasingly stepping in, offering things like non-emergency health care outside traditional work hours, little to no queue times and so on. All while being able to dump the actually difficult cases on public sector, because public sector must treat all patients. Private sector is under no such obligations.
So you get a system where public sector is for those who are the poorest, most ill people that need expensive treatment, while private sector skims the cream off the top and posts record profits year after year. And the wealthiest and healthiest who go to private sector for their overwhelmingly easy to treat problems start voting for the parties that want to defund public care. And private sector companies keep funding said party off their ever increasing profits.
And so, you have a self sustaining process which leads to disaster.
Top payers in medical care are not a mythical one percent. It's closet to universal 20/80 distribution. Weatlhiest people paying most into the system tend to also be healthiest, and vice versa.
This is something we tend to discover in countries with universal health care. Wealthy and healthy people get annoyed that they pay a lot of taxes, and they still have to sit five hours in ER queue with all the junkies and alcoholics. It's a real problem. So they end up paying extra on top of the high taxes paying for universal health care. And then they wonder why is it that they have to pay for public healthcare which they don't use.
Which provides them with incentives to vote for the parties that essentially push to defund public sector in favour of private one. Which is now the most popular party in my country, in some part due to this. It's a genuine problem in long term, and your denials of this will create problem on your end, because while you can refuse to address reality, you cannot refuse to address consequences of your denial of reality.
That is why your desperate attempt to build a caricature out of my arguments so you can easily debunk them is not constructive. You're the one who needs to win hearts and minds to get universal healthcare to pass in US. I already have it and I wholeheartedly support it for US, so strawmanning my points on the negatives of the system will not convince anyone who isn't already on your side, and will most certainly alienate those that aren't, because they can actually read my points, and see that you're not actually addressing them.
And by the way. US is not a "private only" system. Emergency care is still universal. Child healthcare is still universal. Elderly care is still universal.
My understanding is that the main opposition political right has to national health care plan is that it will significantly raise taxes on everyone, while lowering the quality for the top payers.
Which is true. That is how socialized medicine works. To most of us across Europe, that is an acceptable deal. US has a much more "free do succeed or fail" spirit, which makes it unacceptable.
Even here in Finland, if you want high quality care in many fields, you have to go to private sector. We're considered what, top 3 of the most efficient medical system in the world, and right now, it's quite grim. I had to book an appointment for dentist to check my teeth for my once-every-two-years dentist check (they won't allow you to have them more often, and yearly check is done by a hygienist, not a doctor). They couldn't even give me a date when it would happen. Six months wait minimum I was told, and they'll tell me some time in the future when my place in queue is up which of the local private providers I will have to go to to get my teeth checked and when.
Or I can just go pay a lot of money at a private clinic. Being healthy and never really having had any significant teeth problems throughout my life, I don't need to bother. Most people, not so much. So they pay an arm and a leg for private care. Care quality will be the same, because guess what? It's a "purchased service", which is the phrase used for "regional government (which has to provide universal healthcare) buys the service from private sector".
Situation is better for GP, where I only had to wait about a month for my yearly appointment to get a basic health check. Specialist care? Same thing as with teeth checks. Expect three to six months wait, where you can't even ask for specific date for an appointment. You're just given one at some point, and if you don't like it, back in the end of the queue you go. For this reason, private health insurance for children has skyrocketed. You can wait to get medical care for yourself, but your child? Not so much.
And if you're employed at a sizable company, guess what? You get private healthcare because it's mandated by law, to be paid by your employer. Which doesn't have those queue times.
So to pretend that there aren't pros to private-only system is folly. You need to understand that there are pros and cons to each system, and when you misrepresent this in an attempt to sell universal health care, you'll get overwhelming rejection when people notice that they have been fooled. Not a good long term strategy, as people are discovering with "you get to keep your doctor" and other Obamacare debacles in US. Be honest, inform people of pros and cons of each system, and put it to a national vote. I imagine you could probably win that one on universal healthcare. Time seems to be ripe for that in US.
Because in the end, the best system is to have public system that ensures that everyone is provided with minimum healthcare level that lets people stay productive.
You are confusing "public" with "increasingly ideologically progressive media and sizable minority that still trusts them to a meaningful extent". Public by far and large didn't ask for control on "fake news and Russian ads".
Public seems to be mostly against facebook's "controls on what you see". Ask your less technologically savvy friends what they think about it after you explain what it is you're talking about. You'll find overwhelming rejection of these policies. People don't like being told what they can and cannot see. That's why when google tried to label some links "suspect" in the news section, these generated far more clicks. People want to see that which powers tell them they don't want people to see.
And this universal. You can find this in nominally free countries in terms of speech like US just as much as in Soviet Union under complete state propaganda.
And getting back to userland, how many users find anything like this relevant? We're talking a fraction of a percent here at best.
And now, what would be the value of this data to a random internet hacker? What would they do with it? The entire purpose of disk encryption is to guard against someone who also has physical access to you and your machine. At this point, we're going back to "high value target" principle.
In userland, there are few if any high value targets. The value comes from large amount of low value targets, that you can attack in bulk. Something for which neither meltdown nor spectre are suitable for.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a recent tweet from nvidia exec that in fact stated the exact opposite. Gist was that "we're big enough to get priority on memory, unlike some of our much smaller competitors".
You're talking about compute cards. I'm talking actual GPU cards without video out.
There already are GPU boards on the market that have no video out port.
They're not very popular, because miners prefer hardware they can sell when mining boom becomes another hard crash and they have to care about efficiency.
Gamers don't care at all about them, because they're useless for gaming.
When these cards don't end up in hands of gamers, and empty shelves drive the prices up in retail sector, it's a disaster for two gaming GPU companies.
Nvidia especially has invested a lot into getting PC gaming market to grow from a small actor well behind consoles in importance to the primary gaming platform in the world. And maintaining this status requires gaming PCs to remain price competitive and available to gamers.
Losing this means that gamers will just move away from gaming on PCs and use a much cheaper and much more available console for their gaming needs, and companies like Nvidia will once again be stuck as just OEMs for giants like Microsoft, working on razor thin margins.
Certainly. I literally prefaced my first post in this thread with "I think universal healthcare should be pushed through in US, but your arguments are bad, and here's why".
I'm not arguing against universal healthcare. I'm pointing out that arguments used are just too extreme, pushing well beyond reality into falsehoods. Which makes them very easy to debunk, by using social democracies that have universal healthcare as a data point at healthcare system that actually works and is one of the most efficient ones in the world while maintaining cutting edge survival rates for complex and expensive to treat illnesses such as various cancers.
Arguments used need to be far more realistic, and discuss actual, tangible benefits of universal healthcare, while taking care not to slide into extremes of "just how good universal care is". The whole "you get to keep your doctor" lie did more damage to the cause in US than much of right wing propaganda combined.
You talking about "support for minimum wage" among working class infers that working class care in a significant way about it. They do not. As long as immigration is controlled as to not significantly compete with it, they are salaried at rate significantly above minimum wage. This isn't me putting any words in your mouth. This is me addressing misconceptions you demonstrate. Remember, we're talking about political alliances, political parties, and things that such political parties advocate for to gain support of certain societal groups.
For example, you just stated with all seriousness that "employer paid healthcare is still an expense that limits how many people they will hire". This is something that is not considered sane thinking model even in social democracies like mine, because either employer pays for it through payments to the insurer, or through taxes. The money still needs to be paid. Even the most hard line lobbyists of employers group EK around here don't try this level of silliness when they lobby for tools to hire more people.
So I certainly agree that employers would prefer to deal with as few added costs of employment as possible. They're not social organisations, but for profit enterprises. And this is where far left stops, because the core tenet of far left thinking is class warfare. Employers are at war with their employees, and that's that.
In real world on the other hand, they also want efficient workforce, which means they want their workforce to be reasonably healthy. Especially considering the whole "infectious illness" aspect of reality and what it does in a collective of people interacting with each other. Which is why organised healthcare for factory workers was introduced as a concept by the factory owners originally, and why same people understand that providing reasonable health care for their workers benefits their bottom line as long as there isn't a massive oversupply of work force.
You're once again demonstrating the same far left assumptions, such as that legality of immigration has a significant impact on immigration's impact on working class, or that working class is on minimum wage.
Legality of immigration is all but irrelevant for working class. The fact that there is immigration in the first place is which both creates competition for jobs that would not be there otherwise and suppresses wages. Most industrial workers have healthcare provided by their employer. Most of them are not on the minimum wage but salaried at a significantly higher rate. More progressive tax would indeed help them, to an extent. However as industrial workers tend to be fairly well paid, they may get hit by progressive curve, so that is debatable. Here in Finland, industrial workers pay around 40% of their income as income tax due to progression for example.
I didn't make any kind of assumptions on your voting pattern. I merely pointed out that you appear to hold same misconceptions on what class is supported by whom as far left edge of US political spectrum.
Working class have a clear representation in Trump. There's absolutely no question about that. His entire "get production jobs back to US, stop immigration, lower taxes on producers so they can invest in US" platform is about as pro-working class as you can get in modern day. The only way you could even think otherwise is if you subscribe to thinking model that to be pro-working class, you have to be socialist or communist. Which is also a far left misconception.
I find this to be a gross oversimplification, found mainly in fart left edge of US political spectrum. Republicans are the party of the working class working for various production fields and winning this vote with policies aimed at making it easier to get production into US and limit immigration driving the wages of working class down. Democrats are distinctly hostile to these people, down to calling them "deplorables" in last election and openly supporting all of their main class enemies - immigrants and white collar intelligencia.
Democrats appear to be on the other hand the party of big business, who have shown clear support for Clinton in last elections in many non-production industries such as IT.
There's just a whole lot more to US party system and its alliance networks than just "evil christians doing the work of satan and republicans" caricature commonly painted by the same people who call working class "deplorables". Each party has it's own connections and alliances among various strata of society, and interestingly, it seems that our time is the time when many of these connections are shifting. Democrats used to be the party of working class just a couple of decades ago for example, while republicans where the big business party. That has flipped 180.
We live in interesting times when it comes to US politics. Two party system may lock out other parties - but it also causes the two big parties to keep adopting their platforms to various interests, often making friends among those that were their foes just a few decades ago.
Problem being that your average corporate intrusion is among the lines of "they got in because you had administrative account on default port for this server left on". Expensive tailored attacks are very rare in comparison. Pretty much every decent university lecture on the issue done by specialists will feature slides of such intrusions just to demonstrate how lax the weakest link in security actually was.
Benefit is that people who get through those holes are usually not well versed in economics, and ask for hilarious sums to undo the damage. That's another permanent fixture of such lectures. You have people who will manage to hit a company that has revenue in tens or hundreds of millions, do potential damage that would be measured in millions at the very least. Then ask for 500-ish USD to undo the damage and help you fix the problem they got in through. Not a joke - this is the reality of infosec professionals today.
The change that is coming with EU directive is that now perpetrators actually have something to use as a measuring stick on how valuable their intrusion is to the company, and adjust their pricing accordingly.
You appear to be unaware that this form of criminality is common today, and has been for at least a decade at this point.
You can find sources on this in any reasonable university level lecture on information security and crime. Security companies themselves often send people to hold such lectures, and they will literally provide you with screenshots of such intrusions and demands, which are extremely common, when they actually get bad enough to require hiring their experts to solve the underlying security problem.
The thing that is coming with new EU directive is the fact that it sets up stiff fines. Something utterly absent in the past.
The companies buy bitcoin because criminal actors demand payment in bitcoin. They demand payment in bitcoin because it enables much easier movement of funds outside the reach of the things that tend to work with law enforcement, such as banking system.
Remind yourself what currency overwhelming majority of ransomware asks for as a good example of this.
It's likely to go back up sometime around may 2018. Reason for this is massive increase in value of targeted attacks on large organisations, and monetization mechanism of these attacks involving bitcoin.
Basically the new directive will now have EU fine companies up to 5% of their yearly revenue if they have a breach that puts private information at risk and they are found not to have done reasonable precautions to prevent such breach from occurring. That means that where the old ransom for such events was commonly fairly low (often being only 3-4 digits in EUR worth of bitcoin), same criminal actors now actually have a benchmark at what level they can price their successful breach. So now the negotiations between the criminal actors and company will look more like "your yearly revenue is this much, you haven't done your due diligence, we've breached your system and got a lot of private information. Pay us 3% of your monthly revenue and this will go away".
That means many more bitcoins will be needed for paying these criminal actors off, and that means more demand for bitcoin as companies will have to ramp up buying them to have ability to make the pay off.
Problem being that many platforms also belong to the same companies. Google for example controls both the most popular phone OS and the most popular desktop browser.
AdNauseam is not allowed on Chrome, and its functionality is not allowed on Android either.
Problem being that parties that push for this enter parliament because populace votes for them. And populace votes for them because the wealthy don't use the public system all that much, and use private one.
So it's not the "right wing" problem. Our "right wing party" is left of US democratic party. It's the society splitting by class lines - problem. And US has a much harsher culture when it comes to splitting society by class and each class voting only for it own benefits, ignoring the whole. So to sell the universal public healthcare in US, the discussion will have to talk about pros and cons for everyone, in an honest way. Because the majority of the populace will benefit from universal healthcare. And because this discussion will inoculate the system from subversion such as one occurring around the Nordics right now for at least two generations.
Gotta say, "my healthcare is better than yours" was a true cherry on the cake. I guess you subscribe to belief that when you go retard, you may as well go full retard.
More power to you.
I pay for every doctor visit I do in Finland, with universal public healthcare, up to a certain annually reset maximum, at which point the national pensions organisation KELA will pay 100% of the rest afaik. I never needed any such services to such a costly extent as to hit the maximum. Same party also pays for a portion of medical purchases, after a certain annual minimum is fully paid by me. They also make decisions such as which medicines are partially paid for by them, to what extent, and for which illnesses. If your illness is not deemed "correct for this medication", even if medication is found helpful by the doctor, you pay for it in full. A very contentious issue for many patients organisations who lobby for new medications to be accepted on the list for their illness.
And you cannot even declare private bankruptcy here, as the private bankruptcy doesn't exist in the law. Which caused a severe issue with suicide after the economy crash of early 1990s. Instead you're could spend your entire life on the hook for debts in an endless debt spiral. I know they introduced some changes to it so that one failed business doesn't ruin your finances for life, but there's still no "private bankruptcy". We have a Nordic attitude to debt in general, where you are expected to pay what you owe. That's why we have such a major culture clash between North and South in Europe in relation to Greek debt crisis. We expect them to pay back their debts in full, just like we expect our own to pay back their debts in full.
It depends a lot on the system. In Nordic system, where you have parallel private and public health care, what happens is that private healthcare gets to skim the rich and easy cases off the top, and dump the rest on the public system. Which results in massively overloaded public system which gets all the difficult and expensive cases, resulting in lowered quality of care as doctors who have a choice go to private sector.
This is a major problem across Nordics right now. Sweden is so bad at this point, that you have people coming to Finland for quality-critical deeply specialized things like childbirth. Rest of us are a decade or two behind them, which is why our public system at hospital level (specialized care) is still of generally high quality, while the local (i.e. health clinic) is in a downward spiral. I.e. one of the best cancer survival rates in the world, one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and so on, because these things remain in high demand, cannot be easily delivered by private sector that finds it most profitable to treat rich with runny noses. A caricature, but it delivers the correct message in this case. In clinic, it may literally take you days just to get to see a doctor, even after you get sick, because of how badly clogged public system is at this point.
And the worst part is that private care does slowly go up in price, even when public option is available. It's just that we are at the start of the progression, while US is much further down the line. Specialized care in private sector is a small business, and while private companies are clearly lobbying hard for more universal payer system payments to private sector (hence allowing less wealthy people to get into the private system) and we have a major legislative package on the topic that has been on and off in parliamentary limbo for something close to decade at this point. The issue is incredibly explosive and painful, that even the main party pushing for defunding public care and shifting to private, that is currently the most popular party in the country simply cannot push the changes through the parliament. The rejection from the rest of the nation is simply too strong.
You really need to read the second to last paragraph:
>That is why your desperate attempt to build a caricature out of my arguments so you can easily debunk them is not constructive. You're the one who needs to win hearts and minds to get universal healthcare to pass in US. I already have it and I wholeheartedly support it for US, so strawmanning my points on the negatives of the system will not convince anyone who isn't already on your side, and will most certainly alienate those that aren't, because they can actually read my points, and see that you're not actually addressing them.
Norway due to its unique economics makes for a very bad example for anything outside it. Literally worldwide, it's the only state that operates the way it does.
My native Finland is much closer to your typical Nordic system. We actually have severe money problems within the system, and can't just go the way of Norway and offer better salaries to vacuum doctors and nurses from other Nordic countries. Notably, this is the issue that Finland, Sweden and Denmark are facing right now - Norway can simply pay far better wages due to its unique economic structures, which is causing brain drain across its neighbours.
The Grand Experiment in Finland right now is essentially the same that crushed the quality of universal healthcare in Sweden about a decade ago to the point where people in Sweden now come here to Finland to do quality-critical things like childbirth. Population average ages and is less healthy due to problems like obesity. That means more demand. At the same time, doctors and nurses are more slowly becoming changing to female dominated field, and math on that one is brutal. Female doctor will on average do about 2/3 of work hours of a male doctor, typically due to wanting to have multi-year maternity leave and not wanting to do as much overtime.
So you have a classic "more demand, less supply" problem that keeps growing slowly, boiling the frog. Private sector is increasingly stepping in, offering things like non-emergency health care outside traditional work hours, little to no queue times and so on. All while being able to dump the actually difficult cases on public sector, because public sector must treat all patients. Private sector is under no such obligations.
So you get a system where public sector is for those who are the poorest, most ill people that need expensive treatment, while private sector skims the cream off the top and posts record profits year after year. And the wealthiest and healthiest who go to private sector for their overwhelmingly easy to treat problems start voting for the parties that want to defund public care. And private sector companies keep funding said party off their ever increasing profits.
And so, you have a self sustaining process which leads to disaster.
Top payers in medical care are not a mythical one percent. It's closet to universal 20/80 distribution. Weatlhiest people paying most into the system tend to also be healthiest, and vice versa.
This is something we tend to discover in countries with universal health care. Wealthy and healthy people get annoyed that they pay a lot of taxes, and they still have to sit five hours in ER queue with all the junkies and alcoholics. It's a real problem. So they end up paying extra on top of the high taxes paying for universal health care. And then they wonder why is it that they have to pay for public healthcare which they don't use.
Which provides them with incentives to vote for the parties that essentially push to defund public sector in favour of private one. Which is now the most popular party in my country, in some part due to this. It's a genuine problem in long term, and your denials of this will create problem on your end, because while you can refuse to address reality, you cannot refuse to address consequences of your denial of reality.
That is why your desperate attempt to build a caricature out of my arguments so you can easily debunk them is not constructive. You're the one who needs to win hearts and minds to get universal healthcare to pass in US. I already have it and I wholeheartedly support it for US, so strawmanning my points on the negatives of the system will not convince anyone who isn't already on your side, and will most certainly alienate those that aren't, because they can actually read my points, and see that you're not actually addressing them.
And by the way. US is not a "private only" system. Emergency care is still universal. Child healthcare is still universal. Elderly care is still universal.
My understanding is that the main opposition political right has to national health care plan is that it will significantly raise taxes on everyone, while lowering the quality for the top payers.
Which is true. That is how socialized medicine works. To most of us across Europe, that is an acceptable deal. US has a much more "free do succeed or fail" spirit, which makes it unacceptable.
Even here in Finland, if you want high quality care in many fields, you have to go to private sector. We're considered what, top 3 of the most efficient medical system in the world, and right now, it's quite grim. I had to book an appointment for dentist to check my teeth for my once-every-two-years dentist check (they won't allow you to have them more often, and yearly check is done by a hygienist, not a doctor). They couldn't even give me a date when it would happen. Six months wait minimum I was told, and they'll tell me some time in the future when my place in queue is up which of the local private providers I will have to go to to get my teeth checked and when.
Or I can just go pay a lot of money at a private clinic. Being healthy and never really having had any significant teeth problems throughout my life, I don't need to bother. Most people, not so much. So they pay an arm and a leg for private care. Care quality will be the same, because guess what? It's a "purchased service", which is the phrase used for "regional government (which has to provide universal healthcare) buys the service from private sector".
Situation is better for GP, where I only had to wait about a month for my yearly appointment to get a basic health check. Specialist care? Same thing as with teeth checks. Expect three to six months wait, where you can't even ask for specific date for an appointment. You're just given one at some point, and if you don't like it, back in the end of the queue you go. For this reason, private health insurance for children has skyrocketed. You can wait to get medical care for yourself, but your child? Not so much.
And if you're employed at a sizable company, guess what? You get private healthcare because it's mandated by law, to be paid by your employer. Which doesn't have those queue times.
So to pretend that there aren't pros to private-only system is folly. You need to understand that there are pros and cons to each system, and when you misrepresent this in an attempt to sell universal health care, you'll get overwhelming rejection when people notice that they have been fooled. Not a good long term strategy, as people are discovering with "you get to keep your doctor" and other Obamacare debacles in US. Be honest, inform people of pros and cons of each system, and put it to a national vote. I imagine you could probably win that one on universal healthcare. Time seems to be ripe for that in US.
Because in the end, the best system is to have public system that ensures that everyone is provided with minimum healthcare level that lets people stay productive.
You are confusing "public" with "increasingly ideologically progressive media and sizable minority that still trusts them to a meaningful extent". Public by far and large didn't ask for control on "fake news and Russian ads".
Public seems to be mostly against facebook's "controls on what you see". Ask your less technologically savvy friends what they think about it after you explain what it is you're talking about. You'll find overwhelming rejection of these policies. People don't like being told what they can and cannot see. That's why when google tried to label some links "suspect" in the news section, these generated far more clicks. People want to see that which powers tell them they don't want people to see.
And this universal. You can find this in nominally free countries in terms of speech like US just as much as in Soviet Union under complete state propaganda.
And getting back to userland, how many users find anything like this relevant? We're talking a fraction of a percent here at best.
And now, what would be the value of this data to a random internet hacker? What would they do with it? The entire purpose of disk encryption is to guard against someone who also has physical access to you and your machine. At this point, we're going back to "high value target" principle.
In userland, there are few if any high value targets. The value comes from large amount of low value targets, that you can attack in bulk. Something for which neither meltdown nor spectre are suitable for.