What are your thoughts on "simple Medicare for all"?
It's not simple, you need a plan to get there. The human element is going to cause a lot of problems there. it's not cheap, and beyond that, no one likes it (better than Medicaid though, for sure). People will go around complaining, "The insurance I used to have was better" and if you don't have a good plan in place, then those people will be right. ACA was not a good plan, so what reason do you have to believe that the next plan will be any better?
The human obstruction is a voluntary/intentional effort. 90% of our effects is in putting up barriers. "Work or starve".
Work or starve is life putting up barriers. There's no one who made that law. The only way you can avoid starving is to make food, trade for it, beg for it, or steal for it.
When more is consumed by society than produced, then society will collapse. That's just a tautology.
If that bothers you, then you better hope Trump fails very obviously as president. Because if he succeeds, then the whole country will turn into a bunch of yuppies, looking like this crap.
Nah. It's quite easy to ignore how we treat old and sick people, too. So what you're suggesting is we'll end up with a system that sure is good for people who have small illnesses (take an antibiotic, sleep a few days), but the truly sick might have several month delays in getting care.
It's clear that it has made things better in many countries that choose to implement it or something like it.
So what's different? Why is it so great in some countries, whereas the single-payer systems that exist in America (like the VHA) are so problematic?
I think healthcare is just a hard problem.
I think it comes down to why people oppose "socialism." When they hear it, they think, "I will pay higher taxes." Which of course no one likes (the question is whether you get enough value in return for your taxes).
But if it's just, "here, free money!" then Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman will even start favoring it.
I think you'd be surprised how quickly people can come up with a justification for free money. Remember when Bush (and Obama) sent a check to everyone in the mail? How many people complained about that?
Remember we're talking about people who are excited to get a big tax return.
All our problems are due to human obstruction. Remove that, and everything just works.
You might as well say, "All our problems are because people get sick. Remove that, and everything just works." Of course it's true, but it doesn't help with creating a good healthcare system.
The reason we have a shit healthcare system is that Americans are unwilling to embrace the obvious solution of single payer,
It's not clear that this will make things better. As likely as not it will increase payments to the friends of politicians while reducing service. A lot of people look at the VHA (which is a single-payer healthcare system in the US) and say, "I don't want that."
Ahhh......so this explains your shit healthcare system.
No, there's no good explanation for that. It's vested interests trying to hold on to their piece, plus incompetence at the leadership level.
The people in Arkansas doesn't like the healthcare system either. Most people in the country want an improved healthcare system (which is why even McCain campaigned on that, and for that matter so did Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, even if they might have been lying in their campaign). There are disagreements on how to best change the healthcare system, and no really good ideas.
It will never be possible to give a middle-class luxury income to everyone (because anyone with a job on top of that will be bumped up massively, and thus be "the middle class" and have an enormous income);
I think this is the main point of your post. It's wrong though: when robots take all our jobs, by definition, most people will not be working.
How does purchasing power flow from the bot owners to bot users? Nobody has solved that, and most existing ideas use "socialism", which is a four-letter-word in USA.
The closest example we have right now is free oil money. We have examples of how to do it right, for example, Norway, or Alaska where they just mail everyone check. We also have examples of how to do it wrong, with the Saudi Arabian government basically taking the oil money for themselves.
The problem isn't robots taking all our jobs, it's robots taking half of our jobs.
It's not a problem because the economy is a job creating machine. The robots have taken half our jobs (and more) multiple times in the last century, but the economy has created many more than it's taken. We more jobs now (in the US) than at any time in history.
Unemployment rates of 20% are problematic, but they are likely related to bad regulations (note: I didn't say all regulations are bad, some are quite good). If you want to specify a country in particular, we can discuss it more deeply.
Look at how bought into the "work ethic" we are and how many people justify what amounts to luck (if not outright criminality) as "hard work" and thus entitlement to moral superiority (up to and including control of others).
Here's the thing: assume I live in rural Arkansas, and I work in a job every day. Is the job fun? No, but I get up every morning and I do it, and I pay taxes. Do I want my tax money to go to my neighbor who just plays video games all day? Of course not, taking money from me and giving it to him is not fair.
Now assume there is enough money for everyone. That means I get lots of free money, and so does my neighbor. Is that fair? Will I support it? Of course, I want free money. In fact, we've seen things like this pass with little opposition (for example, in Alaska, where everyone gets a check for oil revenues).
btw, why are all the CEOs afraid of AI? Shouldn't they be saying how great AI is, because they know their own jobs are unreplaceable? Or do they know that they are mostly useless dead weight?
Robots taking all our jobs is a good thing. It means we won't have to work anymore.
Of course, that won't happen for a long, long time, and when it does happen we'll have some political upheaval to create a 'Luxurious Income' program (at that point, "basic income" will be much cheaper and stingier than we need to be), but once the dust settles, it will be super great and the world will be a better place.
his goal at the end - eviscerating proprietary software from the face of the earth - just reveals his evil Stalinist tendencies that have never left him, and never will.
The problem with Stalin wasn't his ideals. The problem with Stalin was that he killed people who disagreed with him. Either you have a very basic lack of understanding, or you are purposely trying to mislead people. Which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
What are your thoughts on "simple Medicare for all"?
It's not simple, you need a plan to get there. The human element is going to cause a lot of problems there. it's not cheap, and beyond that, no one likes it (better than Medicaid though, for sure). People will go around complaining, "The insurance I used to have was better" and if you don't have a good plan in place, then those people will be right. ACA was not a good plan, so what reason do you have to believe that the next plan will be any better?
We have worse health care outcomes than most OECD countries
Oh yeah? How are you measuring outcomes today?
but spend more than double per capita
What numbers are you using there? Do you include plastic surgery? Are you comparing doctor salaries in America to doctor salaries in Russia?
There are so many propaganda numbers that you're probably using them too.
The human obstruction is a voluntary/intentional effort. 90% of our effects is in putting up barriers. "Work or starve".
Work or starve is life putting up barriers. There's no one who made that law. The only way you can avoid starving is to make food, trade for it, beg for it, or steal for it.
When more is consumed by society than produced, then society will collapse. That's just a tautology.
I'm pretty sure to annoy you. There was a conference a while back :)
If that bothers you, then you better hope Trump fails very obviously as president. Because if he succeeds, then the whole country will turn into a bunch of yuppies, looking like this crap.
Nah. It's quite easy to ignore how we treat old and sick people, too. So what you're suggesting is we'll end up with a system that sure is good for people who have small illnesses (take an antibiotic, sleep a few days), but the truly sick might have several month delays in getting care.
Golang got rid of it
It's clear that it has made things better in many countries that choose to implement it or something like it.
So what's different? Why is it so great in some countries, whereas the single-payer systems that exist in America (like the VHA) are so problematic?
I think healthcare is just a hard problem.
Yeah that's true. He wasn't very good at running a country.
I think it comes down to why people oppose "socialism." When they hear it, they think, "I will pay higher taxes." Which of course no one likes (the question is whether you get enough value in return for your taxes).
But if it's just, "here, free money!" then Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachman will even start favoring it.
I think you'd be surprised how quickly people can come up with a justification for free money. Remember when Bush (and Obama) sent a check to everyone in the mail? How many people complained about that?
Remember we're talking about people who are excited to get a big tax return.
All our problems are due to human obstruction. Remove that, and everything just works.
You might as well say, "All our problems are because people get sick. Remove that, and everything just works." Of course it's true, but it doesn't help with creating a good healthcare system.
The reason we have a shit healthcare system is that Americans are unwilling to embrace the obvious solution of single payer,
It's not clear that this will make things better. As likely as not it will increase payments to the friends of politicians while reducing service. A lot of people look at the VHA (which is a single-payer healthcare system in the US) and say, "I don't want that."
Oh yeah that guy is most certainly some kind of rightist.
Ahhh......so this explains your shit healthcare system.
No, there's no good explanation for that. It's vested interests trying to hold on to their piece, plus incompetence at the leadership level.
The people in Arkansas doesn't like the healthcare system either. Most people in the country want an improved healthcare system (which is why even McCain campaigned on that, and for that matter so did Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, even if they might have been lying in their campaign). There are disagreements on how to best change the healthcare system, and no really good ideas.
It will never be possible to give a middle-class luxury income to everyone (because anyone with a job on top of that will be bumped up massively, and thus be "the middle class" and have an enormous income);
I think this is the main point of your post. It's wrong though: when robots take all our jobs, by definition, most people will not be working.
How does purchasing power flow from the bot owners to bot users? Nobody has solved that, and most existing ideas use "socialism", which is a four-letter-word in USA.
The closest example we have right now is free oil money. We have examples of how to do it right, for example, Norway, or Alaska where they just mail everyone check. We also have examples of how to do it wrong, with the Saudi Arabian government basically taking the oil money for themselves.
The problem isn't robots taking all our jobs, it's robots taking half of our jobs.
It's not a problem because the economy is a job creating machine. The robots have taken half our jobs (and more) multiple times in the last century, but the economy has created many more than it's taken. We more jobs now (in the US) than at any time in history.
Unemployment rates of 20% are problematic, but they are likely related to bad regulations (note: I didn't say all regulations are bad, some are quite good). If you want to specify a country in particular, we can discuss it more deeply.
Look at how bought into the "work ethic" we are and how many people justify what amounts to luck (if not outright criminality) as "hard work" and thus entitlement to moral superiority (up to and including control of others).
Here's the thing: assume I live in rural Arkansas, and I work in a job every day. Is the job fun? No, but I get up every morning and I do it, and I pay taxes. Do I want my tax money to go to my neighbor who just plays video games all day? Of course not, taking money from me and giving it to him is not fair.
Now assume there is enough money for everyone. That means I get lots of free money, and so does my neighbor. Is that fair? Will I support it? Of course, I want free money. In fact, we've seen things like this pass with little opposition (for example, in Alaska, where everyone gets a check for oil revenues).
btw, why are all the CEOs afraid of AI? Shouldn't they be saying how great AI is, because they know their own jobs are unreplaceable? Or do they know that they are mostly useless dead weight?
Robots taking all our jobs is a good thing. It means we won't have to work anymore.
Of course, that won't happen for a long, long time, and when it does happen we'll have some political upheaval to create a 'Luxurious Income' program (at that point, "basic income" will be much cheaper and stingier than we need to be), but once the dust settles, it will be super great and the world will be a better place.
And you're an idiot for automatically assuming everyone who you disagree with is conservative.
his goal at the end - eviscerating proprietary software from the face of the earth - just reveals his evil Stalinist tendencies that have never left him, and never will.
The problem with Stalin wasn't his ideals. The problem with Stalin was that he killed people who disagreed with him. Either you have a very basic lack of understanding, or you are purposely trying to mislead people. Which is it?
He's harsh on Tim Berners-Lee for supporting DRM. I can't say he's wrong, though.
Also he's harsh on Facebook.
Awwwwwwww.......you're such a caring person! 3