[–] 4 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

Country size has nothing to do with it; it's all in the lobbies.

Much of what's wrong with American healthcare could be fixed with a few pieces of federal legislation:

  1. Any medical practitioner who deals with one health insurance provider has to deal with all of them. Likewise, all insurances have to accept bills from all licensed medical practitioners.
  2. There are limits to how much can be billed for a certain procedure within the health insurance system.
  3. There are limits to how much a health insurance is allowed to charge for the basic plan relative to income.
  4. A health insurance's basic plan must cover at least a certain set of medical procedures (but is allowed to cover more). These include all regular life-saving procedures and a range of preventative ones (e.g. semiannual dental checkups).
  5. Health insurances are not allowed to deny basic coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  6. Deductibles are banned.
  7. Copays are regulated.

This gets rid of the "out of network" bullshit and basically turns the American healthcare system into an approximation of the German one. The German system is one of the most expensive in the world and generally considered to be of middling quality compared to other wealthy nations but it's half as expensive per capita as the American one; based on free enterprise (with a fuckton of regulations, which is normal for the medical sector); and wildly more effective than the American system, which doesn't even rank among other developed nations.

The only reason the USA don't have a better healthcare system is that lobbyists spend an unholy amount of money to ensure it doesn't and lawmakers are willing to do whatever the highest bidder tells them to. Size and diversity have nothing to do with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 22 hours ago* (1 child)

    It's similar in Germany.

    The CDU/CSU, our conservatives, huffed a bit too much of their own supply and had brilliant ideas like reducing the public deficit by reducing infrastructure spending to zero. When that somehow started costing them votes after bridges started to collapse they decided to lean wholesale into the culture war bullshit by "engaging" the hard-right AfD by copying their rhetoric wholesale. Oddly enough, all this does is legitimize the AfD and drive voters to them. Currently the chancellor is busy trying to find out how unpopular he can get before the government collapses, championing policies that would've instantly ended careers twenty years ago. (And yes, this includes cuts to the healthcare system and "cost-saving" measures that everyone agrees will drive up costs.)

    The SPD, our social democrats, have essentially purged all of their social democrat members and are now a business-friendly rump party with no discernible character or platform. The Greens have softened their ecological policies to the point of pointlessness. The FDP, our libertarians, were always ready to harm the country to help the rich; the last time they were in office they were so blatant about it they destroyed the governing coalition and are now deeply despised.

    The one traditional party that somehow moved in a positive direction was The Left, whose Russia fanboys tried to spin off into their own populist party, which then fizzled out. This, and the fact that they still somewhat care about what the label says, makes them the only ones who haven't fully enhsittified themselves.

    Then there's the new boy on the block, the AfD. Positioning themselves as a moderate conservative worker's party, their actual policies only don't declare foreigners (and foreign-looking people) to be second-class humans because that spot is already reserved for Germans who aren't independently wealthy. Foreigners are somewhere below that. Due to an inexplicably effective social media presence and the general fecklessness of the established parties they're rising meteorically.

    Notably, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution only hasn't designated the AfD as a known extremist organization because they immediately sued and the designation must be withheld until the suit is resolved. Several federal countries have designated them as threats to the democratic order. The CDU/CSU insists the can't possibly be banned, at first because they were too small, now because they're too big.

    There are smaller parties that aren't yet self-serving empty husks but they generally don't have any chance of making it past the 5% hurdle because they don't have the weight of tradition or the equivalent of a billion Euro advertising budget behind them. I personally am somewhat partial towards the Humanists because they cite scientific papers for each of their policies. It's a nice break from the usual "our way is the only correct way because we say so". Too bad they'll probably never make it big.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    Okay, the script failed to execute properly the first time around so I just didn't get the redirect. That made things a bit... cryptic and vaguely reminiscent of that old Onion "blood everywhere" story. Second time worked, though.

    And oh shit, now that I see the story proper I actually remember this. Damn, that's a fine bit of web nostalgia. Thanks for bringing that back up (and for getting me to try it again).

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    So the repetitions of "something is terribly wrong" that start mid-sentence are intended that way? Sorry for suspecting an LLM; it does kinda feel like the output of an early (or badly misconfigured) LLM getting stuck on a token. Wouldn't be the first time LLMs have cribbed someone's style.

    Damn those LLMs, they've even managed to ruin random internet bullshit! shakes fist at cloud computing

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    We could get a worldwide ban going but as long as any country with launch capabilities (like, say, the United States) decides not to join the ban we achieve nothing. And given how the States work, it's unlikely that they'd agree to such a ban.

    With CFCs we had the benefit of having replacement chemicals available. Sure, they were somewhat less efficient than CFCs but they worked just fine.

    (Also, some people still use them despite the ban. China has been shown to still be a CFC emitter although to a lesser degree than earlier.)

    A ban or heavy restriction on LEO satellite constellations would render the whole high speed satellite internet business model useless. Sure, you can do it with higher orbits but that requires unacceptable tradeoffs. So you'd see much more pushback.

    On the other hand, charging for environmental damage is kinda hard to work around. Sure, Musk can go cry to daddy Trump if the mean EU forces him to pay up. But Trump can't really do much except escalate the trade war for the thirtieth time.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Might be a good time for countries to start charging SpaceXAI (or however it's called these days) for their effect on the ozone layer.

    If e.g. the EU estimates that it'll have to spend fifty billion euros a year dealing with the effects of LEO satellite constellations in the ozone layer then they should bill those fifty billion euros to the operating companies with each paying a proportion relative to how many satellites they have in LEO.

    Likewise for every other country that has to deal with the effects of a diminished ozone layer. If that means SpaceX becomes deeply unprofitable then that's unfortunate for the investors.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 4 days ago

    They also serve to decentralize remembrance. A Holocaust memorial is good, yes, but it's in one place you're probably not going to go unless you want to. Stumbling stones can be randomly encountered while you go about your day and remind you that someone who had their life ruined once lived here.

    That's precisely why right-wing politicians oppose them in favor of centralized memorials.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    I'm looking to replace an existing Hue setup and some dumb lamps, especially since Hue is hiding basic functionality behind a user account these days. I'm thinking of going with Nanoleaf instead.

    What I have right now:

    • Bridge: Hue bridge
    • Living room: Hue pendant light + Hue E27 bulb, controlled by a Hue switch and optionally synced to a Linux PC running Huenicorn
    • Bedroom: Hue ceiling light, controlled by two Hue switches
    • Guest room: Dumb LED light
    • Bathroom: Dumb LED light

    What I want to install:

    • Bridge: SLZB-06* for Matter+Thread, optionally talking to a Home Assistant instance
    • Living room: 2x 3-pack Nanoleaf Skylight, controlled by a Sense+ switch and optionally synced to a 4D V1 camera
    • Bedroom: Nanoleaf E27 bulb, controlled by two Sense+ switches
    • Guest room: Nanoleaf E27 bulb, controlled a Sense+ switch
    • Bathroom: Nanoleaf E27 bulb, controlled a Sense+ switch

    Now there's a few questions I have:

    • Would this setup work or am I missing something? Nanoleaf's website is quick to mention several home automation hubs, none of which I want to operate.
    • Can I actually sync the Skylights with the 4D camera? The documentation only seems to talk about the corresponding light strips.
    • Is there another option for screen syncing that works with Linux?
    • Can I set a bulb to change its color temperature on a fixed cycle? If so, I could skip one of the Sense+ switches.
    • If Nanoleaf's stuff is unsuitable for my needs, is there another alternative that isn't Hue?
    view more: next ›