18 ms·

no, not really, this is a separate issue. yes, American exceptionalism relies on a comparing itself to the worst countries in the world and ignoring that devel

no, not really, this is a separate issue. yes, American exceptionalism relies on a comparing itself to the worst countries in the world and ignoring that developed nations exist and work out decently. but there really is a skepticism about some Europe nations, can they - and the bloc - sustain its 21st century advances and social safety nets while adequately paying for its own defense? inquiring minds would like to know, and now we don't have to debate it anymore. Is the budget really balanced if all commitments were funded as agreed? Can European nations really tolerate each other with the rearmaments? stay tuned

jajko 2y ago
These are separate issues. Healthcare aint cheap anywhere for the state, but its perfectly fundable for any but the most poor and broken countries in the world, to a very decent level. But US is broken in another way - everything is for-profit, no real oversight, and unrestricted capitalism full throttle. Then you get what you got. There are 2 absolutely basic pillars of modern free society worth living in - 1) how it takes care of its weak and injured ones (healthcare and social services); 2) and how it builds a better future via good available public education. US fails in most if not all of those. There are aspects it excels in but they are not primary markers of happiness, life fulfillment, low stress and such.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  correct, but Americans as a whole aren't envious of what other countries are doing. There is very little consensus to suggest envy - as the supposition above had suggested was the root of European bashing. There is more consensus on accessing these things - healthcare and higher education - via wealth, or programs within the state of residence. Some individual states/cities do offer free higher education, and free healthcare. Segments of the population also get healthcare subsidized from the national federal government, the same experience as if it was universal. Private options are available for all, just like many European nations have or even mandate, to complement a public system. The consensus is very similar to what JD Vance wrote in the group chat: that it remains to be proven that Europe can solve its own problems while gloating about what they've built up domestically by appropriating their budgets towards advances we aren't willing to do. and its "pathetic" that we subsidize their defense, while we do experience squalor and infrastructure problems. The American perspective is very similar to what JD Vance - the vice president - wrote, even if its oversimplified or even inaccurate. Vance didn't just appear from the void, he is a 40 year millennial, who briefly lived in Bernal Heights, San Francisco for more than a year while working at a Menlo Park-based biotechnology company in Silicon Valley, was in the army, from the middle of the country, who openly criticized Trump like anyone else in the SF Bay Area would before finding it more favorable to seek power. His perspectives are not fringe in any way. He is just saying them outloud and with journalists around now.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Sure we can solve problems. In fact, the only problem - underfunded military. We already started across most Europe, to the tune of half a trillion of additional spending just now. Most of that money will come back to our economies, so expect EURO value to rise. Since russia has 0 motivation to stop its war and its goals are pretty clear, this will also increase in near future. It won't be immediate since we foolishly planned long term for peace, but give it a decade and ie Wehrmacht will be in completely different shape than now. Also, its not just US throwing money into black pit of Europe - the money came back with interest in form of global power projection with additional half a billion people standing by you even in your most fucked up invasions like Iraq, thats over for good. We mistakenly bought tons of military hardware from US to the tune of hundreds of billions USD - thats over now too, and it doesn't matter who will be the next guy, the trust is broken for good (for what - some additional negotiation pressure on Ukraine to force them into some minerals deal? Bravo, this is how things are when you give too much power to a bipolar narcissistic person). I am not holding my breath that US will fix half of the issues I've mentioned, although they are pressing issues now. Also, every time I mention healthcare costs in US somebody comes and tells how its almost a fixed issue already. then I read how people give 20k or 40k for a birth, how open heart surgery costed them 60k on top of insurance, how some long term medicine is crushingly expensive. Compare it to here - 0, our 2 childbirths, wife was twice off work for 6 months, full salary kept coming. Even in most capitalistic country in Europe - Switzerland. Also I've had paragliding accident last year with both legs broken, been off work, on wheelchair, tons of MRIs, physiotherapies and so on. Cost - 0, also salary fully compensated by mandatory employer's insurance. Where jdv comes from and his background is irrelevant, he is ass licking amoral pos and showed it to whole world live numerous times. If he represents half of US population, well then the division is just naturally following discord between our continents, cultures and philosophies.
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      > We already started across most Europe, to the tune of half a trillion of additional spending just now. I’m aware, this is the best inception I’ve ever seen because Europeans are acting like its their own idea because they're scared of the US / Russia now and not that the people in the current US administration have been demanding Europe to do this for 8 years straight. less talking, and just scare people into action. Same result, at the expense of some relationships that wore out its welcome. and everyone investing into their local economies. sidenote: I like Switzerland. Way to go guys.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > unrestricted capitalism full throttle This definitely isn't true. American healthcare has vast amounts of public funding of it. It's the mixture of private companies working within a Byzantine regulatory framework (or multiple frameworks) that's causing the issues.
- briandear 2y ago
  > no real oversight The US health system is excessively regulated. It’s anything but unrestricted capitalism. I would argue that the regulation is what makes the system so broken.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lurk2 2y ago
    Which regulations do you believe are contributing to the system being broken?
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    We should pick one of the other OECD states to copy, then. One supposes their systems are less-regulated, since they're cheaper for similar or better outcomes. That must be the case, if excessive regulation is the key problem with the US system, and not something else.
kubb 2y ago
Does rule of law require the same investments as healthcare? Isn't America spending the most per capita on healthcare in the world with horrible outcomes (life expectancy 4 years behind poor countries like Portugal)? Aren't there public healthcare systems outside of Europe? Doesn't America have an insane amount of natural resources and the benefit of controlling world's exchange currency to make up for any additional defence (and offence) expenses? Seems to me a like story to help cope with a subconscious inferiority complex.
- briandear 2y ago
  > life expectancy 4 years behind poor countries like Portugal Demographics has a big impact on life expectancies. Asian Americans have a life expectancy of 84 years for instance. Which is better than Portugal by 3 years. Comparing life expectancies on a per country basis is fraught with error if attempting to attribute differences to health systems. Genetics, climate, diet — all have huge impacts on life expectancy. Puerto Rico has a life expectancy of over 82 years and has the same system as the U.S. It’s a year higher than Cuba in fact. Why does Puerto Rico do better than Cuba when the Cuban system is often claimed to have a better health system? Puerto Rico also has a higher life expectancy than Portugal.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > Puerto Rico has a life expectancy of over 82 years Where are you getting that figure from? I’m seeing 79 years, which is still higher than I would have guessed, but not higher than Portugal at 81.
  - hattmall 2y ago
    The life expectancy of white people in Washington DC says a lot.
modo_mario 2y ago
>but there really is a skepticism about some Europe nations, can they - and the bloc - sustain its 21st century advances and social safety nets while adequately paying for its own defense? Yes. The EU's defence is a political unity issue. Not a spending one. It needs a unified foreign policy where that makes sense and the like. Not countries receiving preferential gas pricing and pusyfooting when it comes to giving arms to Ukraine or the like. It's greatest single threat is russia. One may think they spend a far greater share on it's military and so Europe should too. But it's economy is smaller than Italy's and it has no capacity to fight the block.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Yeah I'm fairly confused about what hugely-increased costs folks think Europe will need to "adequately" defend herself when it's now been definitively demonstrated that the on-paper weakness of Russia (due to its lagging economy) is also in-fact weakness. Europe might need more spending to launch major military adventures on the other side of the globe, which is what the US does quite a bit and why we "need" so much military spending, but for defense? LOL, no. Adjustments in procurement strategies, maybe a little more spending, given the US can no longer be regarded as a solidly reliable supplier and so Europe's going to have to de-globalize some of its military supply chain, but... lots more spending? Why???
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >Zelensky highlighted the disparity in forces between Russia and Europe, saying that Ukraine's army consists of 110 brigades, while Russia fields 220 and plans to expand to 250 this year. In contrast, Europe, including U.S. troops stationed there, has only about 82 combat brigades, he said. https://kyivindependent.com/europe-could-face-russian-occupation-without-ukraines-army-zelensky-warns/ https://kyivindependent.com/europe-could-face-russian-occupa...

jajko 2y ago

These are separate issues. Healthcare aint cheap anywhere for the state, but its perfectly fundable for any but the most poor and broken countries in the world, to a very decent level. But US is broken in another way - everything is for-profit, no real oversight, and unrestricted capitalism full throttle. Then you get what you got. There are 2 absolutely basic pillars of modern free society worth living in - 1) how it takes care of its weak and injured ones (healthcare and social services); 2) and how it builds a better future via good available public education. US fails in most if not all of those. There are aspects it excels in but they are not primary markers of happiness, life fulfillment, low stress and such.

yieldcrv 2y ago
correct, but Americans as a whole aren't envious of what other countries are doing. There is very little consensus to suggest envy - as the supposition above had suggested was the root of European bashing. There is more consensus on accessing these things - healthcare and higher education - via wealth, or programs within the state of residence. Some individual states/cities do offer free higher education, and free healthcare. Segments of the population also get healthcare subsidized from the national federal government, the same experience as if it was universal. Private options are available for all, just like many European nations have or even mandate, to complement a public system. The consensus is very similar to what JD Vance wrote in the group chat: that it remains to be proven that Europe can solve its own problems while gloating about what they've built up domestically by appropriating their budgets towards advances we aren't willing to do. and its "pathetic" that we subsidize their defense, while we do experience squalor and infrastructure problems. The American perspective is very similar to what JD Vance - the vice president - wrote, even if its oversimplified or even inaccurate. Vance didn't just appear from the void, he is a 40 year millennial, who briefly lived in Bernal Heights, San Francisco for more than a year while working at a Menlo Park-based biotechnology company in Silicon Valley, was in the army, from the middle of the country, who openly criticized Trump like anyone else in the SF Bay Area would before finding it more favorable to seek power. His perspectives are not fringe in any way. He is just saying them outloud and with journalists around now.
- jajko 2y ago
  Sure we can solve problems. In fact, the only problem - underfunded military. We already started across most Europe, to the tune of half a trillion of additional spending just now. Most of that money will come back to our economies, so expect EURO value to rise. Since russia has 0 motivation to stop its war and its goals are pretty clear, this will also increase in near future. It won't be immediate since we foolishly planned long term for peace, but give it a decade and ie Wehrmacht will be in completely different shape than now. Also, its not just US throwing money into black pit of Europe - the money came back with interest in form of global power projection with additional half a billion people standing by you even in your most fucked up invasions like Iraq, thats over for good. We mistakenly bought tons of military hardware from US to the tune of hundreds of billions USD - thats over now too, and it doesn't matter who will be the next guy, the trust is broken for good (for what - some additional negotiation pressure on Ukraine to force them into some minerals deal? Bravo, this is how things are when you give too much power to a bipolar narcissistic person). I am not holding my breath that US will fix half of the issues I've mentioned, although they are pressing issues now. Also, every time I mention healthcare costs in US somebody comes and tells how its almost a fixed issue already. then I read how people give 20k or 40k for a birth, how open heart surgery costed them 60k on top of insurance, how some long term medicine is crushingly expensive. Compare it to here - 0, our 2 childbirths, wife was twice off work for 6 months, full salary kept coming. Even in most capitalistic country in Europe - Switzerland. Also I've had paragliding accident last year with both legs broken, been off work, on wheelchair, tons of MRIs, physiotherapies and so on. Cost - 0, also salary fully compensated by mandatory employer's insurance. Where jdv comes from and his background is irrelevant, he is ass licking amoral pos and showed it to whole world live numerous times. If he represents half of US population, well then the division is just naturally following discord between our continents, cultures and philosophies.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    > We already started across most Europe, to the tune of half a trillion of additional spending just now. I’m aware, this is the best inception I’ve ever seen because Europeans are acting like its their own idea because they're scared of the US / Russia now and not that the people in the current US administration have been demanding Europe to do this for 8 years straight. less talking, and just scare people into action. Same result, at the expense of some relationships that wore out its welcome. and everyone investing into their local economies. sidenote: I like Switzerland. Way to go guys.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> unrestricted capitalism full throttle This definitely isn't true. American healthcare has vast amounts of public funding of it. It's the mixture of private companies working within a Byzantine regulatory framework (or multiple frameworks) that's causing the issues.
briandear 2y ago
> no real oversight The US health system is excessively regulated. It’s anything but unrestricted capitalism. I would argue that the regulation is what makes the system so broken.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lurk2 2y ago
  Which regulations do you believe are contributing to the system being broken?
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  We should pick one of the other OECD states to copy, then. One supposes their systems are less-regulated, since they're cheaper for similar or better outcomes. That must be the case, if excessive regulation is the key problem with the US system, and not something else.

kubb 2y ago

Does rule of law require the same investments as healthcare? Isn't America spending the most per capita on healthcare in the world with horrible outcomes (life expectancy 4 years behind poor countries like Portugal)? Aren't there public healthcare systems outside of Europe? Doesn't America have an insane amount of natural resources and the benefit of controlling world's exchange currency to make up for any additional defence (and offence) expenses? Seems to me a like story to help cope with a subconscious inferiority complex.

briandear 2y ago
> life expectancy 4 years behind poor countries like Portugal Demographics has a big impact on life expectancies. Asian Americans have a life expectancy of 84 years for instance. Which is better than Portugal by 3 years. Comparing life expectancies on a per country basis is fraught with error if attempting to attribute differences to health systems. Genetics, climate, diet — all have huge impacts on life expectancy. Puerto Rico has a life expectancy of over 82 years and has the same system as the U.S. It’s a year higher than Cuba in fact. Why does Puerto Rico do better than Cuba when the Cuban system is often claimed to have a better health system? Puerto Rico also has a higher life expectancy than Portugal.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > Puerto Rico has a life expectancy of over 82 years Where are you getting that figure from? I’m seeing 79 years, which is still higher than I would have guessed, but not higher than Portugal at 81.
- hattmall 2y ago
  The life expectancy of white people in Washington DC says a lot.

modo_mario 2y ago

>but there really is a skepticism about some Europe nations, can they - and the bloc - sustain its 21st century advances and social safety nets while adequately paying for its own defense? Yes. The EU's defence is a political unity issue. Not a spending one. It needs a unified foreign policy where that makes sense and the like. Not countries receiving preferential gas pricing and pusyfooting when it comes to giving arms to Ukraine or the like. It's greatest single threat is russia. One may think they spend a far greater share on it's military and so Europe should too. But it's economy is smaller than Italy's and it has no capacity to fight the block.

alabastervlog 2y ago
Yeah I'm fairly confused about what hugely-increased costs folks think Europe will need to "adequately" defend herself when it's now been definitively demonstrated that the on-paper weakness of Russia (due to its lagging economy) is also in-fact weakness. Europe might need more spending to launch major military adventures on the other side of the globe, which is what the US does quite a bit and why we "need" so much military spending, but for defense? LOL, no. Adjustments in procurement strategies, maybe a little more spending, given the US can no longer be regarded as a solidly reliable supplier and so Europe's going to have to de-globalize some of its military supply chain, but... lots more spending? Why???
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >Zelensky highlighted the disparity in forces between Russia and Europe, saying that Ukraine's army consists of 110 brigades, while Russia fields 220 and plans to expand to 250 this year. In contrast, Europe, including U.S. troops stationed there, has only about 82 combat brigades, he said. https://kyivindependent.com/europe-could-face-russian-occupation-without-ukraines-army-zelensky-warns/ https://kyivindependent.com/europe-could-face-russian-occupa...