🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Faket In and of itself that isnt necessarily a bad thing.. money is a measure of wealth and quality of life, so its a good priority to have. The issue becomes when they just arent very good at making advantageous decisions.

@Faket

BTW I am rather shocked to hear that any country didnt have the right to vote for women until 1990, even 1971 is astonishingly late..

by comparison we had the vote for the women's right to vote passed in 1919 and it was ratified as an amendment by 1920

@pants

@Faket

What was the reason for that delay? I suspect what country are we talking about here, switzerland?

@pants

@pants

reformism is only slow when the people are undecided/split.. if everyone agrees strongly about what needs to be done it can happen extremely fast... Thing isI dont have faith in the people to make the right decisions so when they do all agree, which is rare, it usually isnt about the correct things anyway., nor are they willing to really put their ideas up to the test and change them if they dont pan out.. it tends to be more dogmatic.

@Faket

@Faket democracy in any reasonable form is fine, its reasonable and it works.. everyone is so focused on the system and that isnt the problem, never has been.. the problem is that the system is determined by the people, and the people arent well informed on what works and what doesnt, nor are they objective enough to see it when their wrong... democracy can only work when you have the right people driving it.

The solution to our problems can only come by changing the way people think and approach social problems, which isnt the direction we are headed.

@Faket

the thing about reform is that its a compromize with everyone, and it can only do as well as the people are educated to know what works or how to test for what works.

Radicalism might give you faster results but you now have the decisions being made by a few radical individuals, this can work great if they are highly educated and know how to test if their outcomes are correct and not particularly biased, but that is never the case. Radicalism goes hand in hand with extreme biases and of course they **think** they know better than everyone else but rarely do.. So it may have quick results but those results tend to be disasterous.

@pants

@pants

And yes, we seem to mostly disagree on markets.. keep in mind I do not support free markets in their extreme. I feel there needs to be some regulation, but I would say that regulation needs to be minimized for the most part. You wont find me on the extreme end on any issue but you will often find me leaning to one side or another and when it comes to markets i lean fairly heavily towards free markets over highly regulated ones.

@Faket

@pants

Depends on who is doing the revolting I guess :)

@Faket

@Faket

Oops, my fault :)

@pants

@Faket

well they are different tests and dont have all the same categories. But yea we seem pretty similar.
@pants

@pants Yea i dont usually like online tests but these actually make sense :)

@sacha you can get almost anything if you try to when you take the test :)

@kisefe6281 I'm the head-code/project owner for the Aparapi project along with a team of half a dozen or so devs

man been trying to get my project to cross compile on linux to both windows, mac and 32bit linux... ive got it working on the windows and 32bit side but mac really wants to make my life difficult i see.

@sacha thats a pretty good place to be IMO.. anywhere near the middle is a good sign

@mathias

> Even though I get your point on that the cost aspect is moot, I still, perhaps stubbornly and in ignorance, think it plays a factor when comparing health care between Europe and US.

Yes of course it does, but the point here is we are **not** comparing healthcare between USA and europe. I never argued "USA is better than europe".. so any effort to compare the two, while valid if that were the argument, doesnt apply here.

what I argued is that the USA system **and** the european system have both failed and neither should be emulated. So any effort to compare the two has no relevance to that discussion. Why compare them at all when we arent discussing which is better but rather why both failed?

It is clear to me both systems are an abject failure and they fail in very different ways. the USA system is a failure because of costs, and a broken welfare system that leaves many without access, this is totally value.

The european system fails because quality of care goes into the shitter when you remove competitive pressures, you get excessive wait times that result in people suffering or dying, you get violations in privacy as I mentioned, and a host of other issues.

Neither system works but if all we do is keep arguing why one failed system failed a little less than another failed system we wont get anyway. The point I am making and the point of this discussion is to point out that since both systems are failures we could and should be looking to other systems not like either of the two we are discussing here (and I already pointed out what that should be, a co-op system).

@lfrffs @ew @louiscouture

@thewismit

At least you are still on the bottom half I guess :)

@realcaseyrollins

@FailForward

They werent out of the blue. They were from my research notes a year ago, I can find the data again if needed.

and yea the data you just linked looks pretty horrible to me, it largely agrees with the numbers I stated, surgery wait times are in many cases over a **year** thats absolutely abysmal. Having someone suffering in pain and dealing with a disease for a year longer than they need to is absolutely unacceptable.

When i look at those numbers I dont see anything that comes even close to acceptable.

@mathias @lfrffs @ew @louiscouture

@mathias

> Ok. Sorry to hear that. However, that is one isolated (albeit very specific) case.

No, its not. As I pointed out aside from this being my expiernce across most of europe I am a data scientist and it is reflected strongly in the data as well.

For example Germany has the lowest wait times in europe and it is 4.8x more common to have a wait time of 2 months or more in Germany than it is in the USA. This is hardly an isolated incident.

> I would say the trend, covering health care systems at large, for larger amounts of cases, shows that the health care in the US is by FAR more costly in the US compared to most other countries

This is an entierly moot point given the scope of the discussion. My assertion was that both the USA and Europe systems suck but in different ways and that neither system is an appropriate solution overall. Therefore arguing ways that the USA sucks does not negate my argument that the european system is horrific and not to be emulated either.

The costs and other concerns about the USA system (there are plenty) are entirely valid in their own right but are not a valid argument to claim the european system is effectual. One system sucking is not an excuse for the other system sucking. The fact that both systems are horrendous is my very point, neither work and we shouldnt be adopting **either** system (remember I recommended an entirely different third option that doesnt resemble either system).

> A thing I’m missing completely in this (very interesting btw) discussion is that there seem to be a perceived binary option between either fully centralised health care, or a fully privatised one.

This is almost my point.. not only is the system not binary (centralized vs private), but its not even a spectrum or a dichotomy. There are literally more than 2 types of systems and more options than a public centralized system, or a privatized system or anything that is inbetween these two.. there are systems that have no qualities of centralization of any kind, and yet are not privatized in any way, these are the systems I promote, and they dont resemble anything in the USA or europe honestly.

@lfrffs @ew @louiscouture

@Faket interesting to hear at least some of these auto antonyms carry across linguistic lines.