6 ms·

> Have you ever actually taken Amtrak? Yes I have and your statement is correct. Amtrak is almost entirely dysfunctional but rail as a concept is not dysfuncti

> Have you ever actually taken Amtrak? Yes I have and your statement is correct. Amtrak is almost entirely dysfunctional but rail as a concept is not dysfunctional and actually works in many other countries. It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow. Likewise with the military. What is it about the US that makes so many fundamental services needed for the functioning of society into shitshows?

TylerE 7y ago
It'll never work in the US. Outside of a handle of locations, we just don't have the population density. On the coasts maybe, but even high-speed rail is just too slow for the west and mid-west. The sweet spot for rail seems to be journeys of 100-300 miles... lots of even major US cities don't have another major city in that radius.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  lots... I've got Denver, SLC... where else?
  - zachsnow 7y ago
    I am from Minneapolis. I’m trying to imagine a fast rail connect to Chicago as being better than driving. Once in Chicago I think I’d like to have a car? It’s only a day’s drive away so I imagine I’d rather drive. Basically the net is that the US is car centric and it will be a lot of work to change that. (Which I’m on board for, it’s just not easy or quick.)
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      If the rail line were really straight, Milwaukee would be right at 300 miles from the Twin Cities. (I agree, Des Moines doesn't really count as a "major city".)
    - UserIsUnused 7y ago
      I had a few friends that commuted 1 hour by train each day, and they simply decided to buy and share an old car in the destination station. Just to make the 3 miles between the station and workplace. Bus were disfunctional, so they couldn't be relied on. They huge amount of money saved in tolls and gas (gas here is not as cheap as in the US), plus the free time and more comfortable trip in the train, made the old crap car investment quite a no brainer.
Buge 7y ago
With the military, I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks. Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research are given to other countries without them having to pay much.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks. Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    This is a really insightful example. It pretty near demolishes all the self-serving theories pushed by MIC-underwritten think tanks etc. So what are we left with? Maybe most other nations have just rationally decided that human life can and should be more peaceful, so it's not necessary to stockpile enough armaments to kill all humans fifty times over.
    - briandear 7y ago
      How much more would Korea have to spend on their military if they left the US shield? Or Japan? Or Taiwan? Or the Philippines? And the US did provide substantial aid to the Ukraine. The US has provided over $1.5 billion to Ukraine. How much did Germany provide?
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Grandparent's claim was that other nations "can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks". Ukraine clearly can't rely on that, any more than Taiwan can. This quibbling over accounting is beside the point. Philippines have already kicked USA military out of all the various bases they had built there. (No one who knows a bit of history was surprised by that.) RoK will eventually spend more resources supporting DPRK than menacing it, and they might very well kick USA out in the next decade. Korea fairly exemplifies the situation of nations who might consider USA military "assistance". Their current situation is far from what they would consider ideal, even if worse could be imagined. They could keep militarizing more and more, running to stand still, but that won't be tenable forever. We're told to fear change, but the change that the militarists really fear is more peace.
briandear 7y ago
> It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suffering-direct-result-nhs-wait-time-failures https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suf... I have great health insurance and can use Stanford Health doctors and clinics. It isn’t a shit show for me. Public health might be some version of a shit show in the US, but most people have insurance. Nobody is going to the U.K. for advanced cancer treatment if they have a choice. And the French system? Billions in debt. They even pay for spa treatments in some cases — and they pay for homeopathy. Those “great” systems come at a huge cost. Why do Americans have vastly more disposable income (even after paying for insurance) than the rest of the world? The US system is fine — at least until the part were the government gets involved. The VA is the closest approximation to what government health looks like and that is the real shit show. The NHS is a shit show — try to get mental health care. Try to get advanced treatment and diagnostics. Try not to be too old or they’ll just deny your care. Be careful if you are young too — if your parents want to take you out of the U.K. because the NHS has no more options, the government will stop you. And how many revolutionary drugs have ever come out of the NHS? Very few. That isn’t a coincidence.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The NHS is a shitshow now "thanks" to decades of neoliberals gutting it. If you want to see a decent healthcare system go to Germany.
  - digi59404 7y ago
    Currently in Germany. Everyone i've spoken to about this states their healthcare isn't the best either. Wait times, wait limits, misdiagnosis, etc. Coworkers wife got misdiagnosed, developed into a lung infection, put her in the hospital. She can't change doctors. This whole "Healthcare is better X" is a fallacy. No only do people not have enough first hand indepth knowledge of how healthcare works in each country. But many countries, cultures, and environments are different in ways you can't calculate. I.e. In Europe people will eat more produce and fruits simply because their Grocery stores are on every corner. In the U.S. Not so, even in major cities.

TylerE 7y ago

It'll never work in the US. Outside of a handle of locations, we just don't have the population density. On the coasts maybe, but even high-speed rail is just too slow for the west and mid-west. The sweet spot for rail seems to be journeys of 100-300 miles... lots of even major US cities don't have another major city in that radius.

jessaustin 7y ago
lots... I've got Denver, SLC... where else?
- zachsnow 7y ago
  I am from Minneapolis. I’m trying to imagine a fast rail connect to Chicago as being better than driving. Once in Chicago I think I’d like to have a car? It’s only a day’s drive away so I imagine I’d rather drive. Basically the net is that the US is car centric and it will be a lot of work to change that. (Which I’m on board for, it’s just not easy or quick.)
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    If the rail line were really straight, Milwaukee would be right at 300 miles from the Twin Cities. (I agree, Des Moines doesn't really count as a "major city".)
  - UserIsUnused 7y ago
    I had a few friends that commuted 1 hour by train each day, and they simply decided to buy and share an old car in the destination station. Just to make the 3 miles between the station and workplace. Bus were disfunctional, so they couldn't be relied on. They huge amount of money saved in tolls and gas (gas here is not as cheap as in the US), plus the free time and more comfortable trip in the train, made the old crap car investment quite a no brainer.

Buge 7y ago

With the military, I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks. Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research are given to other countries without them having to pay much.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks. Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  This is a really insightful example. It pretty near demolishes all the self-serving theories pushed by MIC-underwritten think tanks etc. So what are we left with? Maybe most other nations have just rationally decided that human life can and should be more peaceful, so it's not necessary to stockpile enough armaments to kill all humans fifty times over.
  - briandear 7y ago
    How much more would Korea have to spend on their military if they left the US shield? Or Japan? Or Taiwan? Or the Philippines? And the US did provide substantial aid to the Ukraine. The US has provided over $1.5 billion to Ukraine. How much did Germany provide?
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      Grandparent's claim was that other nations "can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks". Ukraine clearly can't rely on that, any more than Taiwan can. This quibbling over accounting is beside the point. Philippines have already kicked USA military out of all the various bases they had built there. (No one who knows a bit of history was surprised by that.) RoK will eventually spend more resources supporting DPRK than menacing it, and they might very well kick USA out in the next decade. Korea fairly exemplifies the situation of nations who might consider USA military "assistance". Their current situation is far from what they would consider ideal, even if worse could be imagined. They could keep militarizing more and more, running to stand still, but that won't be tenable forever. We're told to fear change, but the change that the militarists really fear is more peace.

briandear 7y ago

> It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suffering-direct-result-nhs-wait-time-failures https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/08/patients-suf... I have great health insurance and can use Stanford Health doctors and clinics. It isn’t a shit show for me. Public health might be some version of a shit show in the US, but most people have insurance. Nobody is going to the U.K. for advanced cancer treatment if they have a choice. And the French system? Billions in debt. They even pay for spa treatments in some cases — and they pay for homeopathy. Those “great” systems come at a huge cost. Why do Americans have vastly more disposable income (even after paying for insurance) than the rest of the world? The US system is fine — at least until the part were the government gets involved. The VA is the closest approximation to what government health looks like and that is the real shit show. The NHS is a shit show — try to get mental health care. Try to get advanced treatment and diagnostics. Try not to be too old or they’ll just deny your care. Be careful if you are young too — if your parents want to take you out of the U.K. because the NHS has no more options, the government will stop you. And how many revolutionary drugs have ever come out of the NHS? Very few. That isn’t a coincidence.

mschuster91 7y ago
The NHS is a shitshow now "thanks" to decades of neoliberals gutting it. If you want to see a decent healthcare system go to Germany.
- digi59404 7y ago
  Currently in Germany. Everyone i've spoken to about this states their healthcare isn't the best either. Wait times, wait limits, misdiagnosis, etc. Coworkers wife got misdiagnosed, developed into a lung infection, put her in the hospital. She can't change doctors. This whole "Healthcare is better X" is a fallacy. No only do people not have enough first hand indepth knowledge of how healthcare works in each country. But many countries, cultures, and environments are different in ways you can't calculate. I.e. In Europe people will eat more produce and fruits simply because their Grocery stores are on every corner. In the U.S. Not so, even in major cities.