5 ms·

I see successful government projects in many countries. Unfortunately in the US we have this belief that government projects are destined to fail, which means w

I see successful government projects in many countries. Unfortunately in the US we have this belief that government projects are destined to fail, which means we don’t invest in them, so they often fail... self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.

rayiner 6y ago
That’s not true! Blue states exist, and they invest in plenty of things. Those fail, but that doesn’t deter blue state voters.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  If you look at why they fail, it can typically be followed back to interventions made by the right.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Sorry, no, that excuse is toxic because it provides cover for bad government that doesn’t work. We’re talking about states like California and New York that don’t have a meaningful “right.” California’s attempt at universal healthcare managed to self-destruct with Democrats having the Governorship as well as super-majorities in the state legislature. Every now and then these states will elect a moderate Republican just to get a reprieve from the repeated waves of failure of public services, but those failures can’t be blamed on “the right.” People in blue states should be madder about the fact that their public services are bad. That just means that people get less than what they pay for, and people in need do without. If it cost Europeans as much money to build subways as it does New York or SF they probably wouldn’t do it! And even when it doesn’t like (like California HSR) and is merely 5-10x more expensive than it should be, that just means 1/5 or 1/10th as many people get the service.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      People should be mad about the quality of public services in the states but "delivering universal health care" seems like a weirdly high bar to set.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        It’s just the latest example of something European countries a lot less wealthy than California have managed to do that California can’t manage to do.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Right, but those are countries, and California is not. They control their borders, heavily restrict residency, and have their own central banks.
        votepaunchy 6y ago
        Europe has free movement of people throughout the Schengen Area and a common currency plus European Central Bank. It's not quite federalism but there is nothing here to disqualify California from providing universal healthcare.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Citizens of members states can, for instance, travel through Germany and remain there indefinitely so long as they're financially independent or actively looking for work, but they are not automatically residents of Germany. The two situations, EU member states and California compared to its peer states, are obviously not comparable. There are clear reasons why individual US states haven't been able to provide universal health care. It's not because the idea is unworkable at a national level; it's because you can't do it state-by-state. (I oppose single-payer health care, for whatever that's worth to you. I just think the bar Rayiner set for this discussion is silly.)
        bhupy 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 6y ago

That’s not true! Blue states exist, and they invest in plenty of things. Those fail, but that doesn’t deter blue state voters.

hanniabu 6y ago
If you look at why they fail, it can typically be followed back to interventions made by the right.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Sorry, no, that excuse is toxic because it provides cover for bad government that doesn’t work. We’re talking about states like California and New York that don’t have a meaningful “right.” California’s attempt at universal healthcare managed to self-destruct with Democrats having the Governorship as well as super-majorities in the state legislature. Every now and then these states will elect a moderate Republican just to get a reprieve from the repeated waves of failure of public services, but those failures can’t be blamed on “the right.” People in blue states should be madder about the fact that their public services are bad. That just means that people get less than what they pay for, and people in need do without. If it cost Europeans as much money to build subways as it does New York or SF they probably wouldn’t do it! And even when it doesn’t like (like California HSR) and is merely 5-10x more expensive than it should be, that just means 1/5 or 1/10th as many people get the service.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    People should be mad about the quality of public services in the states but "delivering universal health care" seems like a weirdly high bar to set.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      It’s just the latest example of something European countries a lot less wealthy than California have managed to do that California can’t manage to do.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Right, but those are countries, and California is not. They control their borders, heavily restrict residency, and have their own central banks.
        votepaunchy 6y ago
        Europe has free movement of people throughout the Schengen Area and a common currency plus European Central Bank. It's not quite federalism but there is nothing here to disqualify California from providing universal healthcare.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Citizens of members states can, for instance, travel through Germany and remain there indefinitely so long as they're financially independent or actively looking for work, but they are not automatically residents of Germany. The two situations, EU member states and California compared to its peer states, are obviously not comparable. There are clear reasons why individual US states haven't been able to provide universal health care. It's not because the idea is unworkable at a national level; it's because you can't do it state-by-state. (I oppose single-payer health care, for whatever that's worth to you. I just think the bar Rayiner set for this discussion is silly.)
        bhupy 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]