3 ms·

> So if the left says "lets reduce poverty, do needle sharing programs, detox clinics, and defund the police in exchange for neighbourhood cops and mental healt

> So if the left says "lets reduce poverty, do needle sharing programs, detox clinics, and defund the police in exchange for neighbourhood cops and mental health helpers at shelters and poorer schools" and the right says "lets give cops a tank and a more dangerous looking outfit". One is aligned with the scientific consensus on the solutions that would help, the other is just idealising violence as a solution to a complex problem. That's were you mix politics and science. Both sides (generally) agree that less crime, better healthcare and more education is good. One just just says that private healthcare leads to better results and that defunding the police just leads to an even less organized force that is even worse at preventing crime. Given how few samples of large societies we have and how different each country is, we are very far from a scientific consensus on how those issues are best solved.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> One just just says that private healthcare leads to better results And this is a clear case of ideological, not scientific thinking. From an example prespective, the next 23 richest countries behind America, all have public healthcare. From a mathematical prespective, healthcare is a natural monopoly and therefore not bound by market forces. From a legislation prespective, free laissex faire medical practice is dangerous and impractical therefore regulation is needed, once you interced to that level, you benefit from integration and monolithic procedural systems. And from a larger economic view, by tying employment to healthcare you reduce labour strength, which means uncompetitive companies can run for longer by keeping their workers hostage, if they could leave for another company the economy at large would benefit. Other than believe on paper that gubernamental overreach is inefficient, there is no angle you can justify private healthcare as the sole means of addressing a public need. Even the few arguments that are still used to defend the system such as "wait times" hold little wait when you look at the 40% of Americans who skip recommended surgeries due to cost. Wait times are lower because tons of people are not being provided a service. Which is inarguably much worse than waiting, hence why America has lower living standards and lifespan than the countries they bemoan the waits of.
- kaba0 4y ago
  > From a mathematical prespective, healthcare is a natural monopoly and therefore not bound by market forces. Also, it would work basically by an insurance model, which can work cheaper the more clients it has, quite trivially. That’s why the next 23 richest country manages to pay less for better care.
asveikau 4y ago
It's bonkers to me that anyone thinks police activity reduces crime. Look at the crime graphs, 1990 to now. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2D7B/production/_119034611_0af9173d-98b2-4ee3-8436-413c9fb808b2-1.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2D7B/production/... Firstly, we're in a very safe historical period. But right wingers try to freak everybody out as their latest wedge issue, no different from prior wedge issues, like scaring people over gay issues or trying to juice turnout by talking about abortion. (The latter recently backfired, of course, but was more effective for them in the past.) It should be obvious from crime graphs that policing does not shape crime rates, it moves on larger trends that are harder to understand.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> One just just says that private healthcare leads to better results And this is a clear case of ideological, not scientific thinking. From an example prespective, the next 23 richest countries behind America, all have public healthcare. From a mathematical prespective, healthcare is a natural monopoly and therefore not bound by market forces. From a legislation prespective, free laissex faire medical practice is dangerous and impractical therefore regulation is needed, once you interced to that level, you benefit from integration and monolithic procedural systems. And from a larger economic view, by tying employment to healthcare you reduce labour strength, which means uncompetitive companies can run for longer by keeping their workers hostage, if they could leave for another company the economy at large would benefit. Other than believe on paper that gubernamental overreach is inefficient, there is no angle you can justify private healthcare as the sole means of addressing a public need. Even the few arguments that are still used to defend the system such as "wait times" hold little wait when you look at the 40% of Americans who skip recommended surgeries due to cost. Wait times are lower because tons of people are not being provided a service. Which is inarguably much worse than waiting, hence why America has lower living standards and lifespan than the countries they bemoan the waits of.

kaba0 4y ago
> From a mathematical prespective, healthcare is a natural monopoly and therefore not bound by market forces. Also, it would work basically by an insurance model, which can work cheaper the more clients it has, quite trivially. That’s why the next 23 richest country manages to pay less for better care.

asveikau 4y ago

It's bonkers to me that anyone thinks police activity reduces crime. Look at the crime graphs, 1990 to now. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2D7B/production/_119034611_0af9173d-98b2-4ee3-8436-413c9fb808b2-1.png https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/2D7B/production/... Firstly, we're in a very safe historical period. But right wingers try to freak everybody out as their latest wedge issue, no different from prior wedge issues, like scaring people over gay issues or trying to juice turnout by talking about abortion. (The latter recently backfired, of course, but was more effective for them in the past.) It should be obvious from crime graphs that policing does not shape crime rates, it moves on larger trends that are harder to understand.