4 ms·

Sounds like we need to dismantle and replace this broadly dysfunctional system at multiple points. It's not like the US insurance landscape is anywhere close to

Sounds like we need to dismantle and replace this broadly dysfunctional system at multiple points. It's not like the US insurance landscape is anywhere close to the best way of handling healthcare if you look at many places in the world.

eueheu 6mo ago
[flagged]
analog31 6mo ago
I used to think this too. But the past couple of years have soured my taste for "dismantle and replace" of vital institutions. I still think healthcare needs to be reformed, and I hope that insurance will someday be a thing of a past, but I've hung up my chain saw for now.
- squigz 6mo ago
  This is because "dismantle and replace" (or perhaps in other words, "defunding") is not a serious, viable solution to many of the societal issues we face. Things were ruined slowly. They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.
  - ianbutler 6mo ago
    I don't think that's going to work. We need broad political change and then that has to work rapidly to legislate this. I don't think slow and steady has done anything but lead to the decay our institutions over the last 70 years.
    - zbentley 6mo ago
      I think that both this and GP are misguided. The pace of societal change in a given direction is neither inherently proportional to the pace of change in a different direction (GP) nor is the pace part of the direction (you). You have to engage with the specific historical events/factors that led to the direction and the pace in order to change either. Broad statements like "society is big so change has to be slow" are just as unwarranted as "slow change results in decline". There's a correct answer to "how quickly can change in a new direction be achieved". It will probably only become known after the fact. It will certainly not be model-able as a function with variables for "progressive or not" and "speed of change".
      - ianbutler 6mo ago
        My argument is more along the lines of "slow change has resulted in decline observably for the time period I have observed it and we should try catalyzing something else" I grant that whether that winds up being fast or slow even if the attempt is intended to be fast is out of my or anyone's hands for the most part as the system dampens that barring total collapse and chaos :P
  - andrekandre 6mo ago
    > They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too. this can work until you hit a crisis point; i think one issue is we are sliding faster in the wrong direction (increasing bureaucracy, increasing fees, wait times, overwork etc) so "slowly" can work but only if its "fast enough" if you get what i mean (people are really suffering out there)
- tehjoker 6mo ago
  You've witnessed a dismantle and replace effort by the right wing that wishes to squeeze everything to make rich people more money. An effort by the left would destroy the private insurance scheme and build up medicare. Completely different and you'd get something functional. When the wrong targets get destroyed, everyone suffers. When parasitic forces are destroyed, the system functions better. It's the difference between defense and friendly fire.
  - lpcvoid 6mo ago
    Why is this downvoted? What the (far) right wing has done to american institutions is incredibly destructive and it will take decades to fix it, if that's even possible. People are hurting because of it.
  - kortilla 6mo ago
    We already had an effort by the left. You can “no true scotsmen” if you want, but it represents the reality of what will happen when ideals clash a sector that makes up 18% of the GDP. What’s going to be different now than in 2010?
    - e584 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - myko 6mo ago
      Are you referring to the ACA here? That was a compromise bill that props up the current system in the US, primarily created by right leaning centrists.
    - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
      > We already had an effort by the left. You mean the one based on Mitt Romney's approach?
      - kortilla 6mo ago
        Yep, that Obama spearheaded and was the keystone piece of legislation of the entire administration
- ianbutler 6mo ago
  It's increased mine if it works for the repugnant morons in government right now we can use the same playbook for positive change.
  - SauntSolaire 6mo ago
    It's easy to destroy but hard to create. If your goal is to further destroy then I suppose that's achievable, but I have a hard time picturing what positive change is going to come from it.
    - ianbutler 6mo ago
      No offense, but this comes off as passive indifference and while I've heard people say things like this all my life it has broadly resulted in watching 30 years of societal decay. I can't help but think this is wrong. We should have stacked the courts ourselves, brandished executive orders etc, had some spine. Edit: I think I need to make clear my thinking that the right has selectively destroyed institutions and levied them in other areas where it makes sense for their agenda. It's not been wanton. So when I say leverage the playbook it's not a one sided act of destruction.
      - SauntSolaire 6mo ago
        Let's say, hypothetically, you had two political parties — a "destroy the current institutions" party, and the "preserve the current institutions" party. The latter might notice the former having an easier time, but "hey, it works for them" is the wrong takeaway. Commit to the hard work of building resilient institutions; don't join in the destruction because it's easier. There's also an element of "Never (...), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
        ianbutler 6mo ago
        The republicans are building things not just destroying is the point. It’s just stuff you wont like. This is why Im not a democrat. The left hasn't been able to effect change or be useful ever [my entire life], sure loves to moralize though.
- HPsquared 6mo ago
  Replace first, then the old broken one will fade away.

eueheu 6mo ago

[flagged]

analog31 6mo ago

I used to think this too. But the past couple of years have soured my taste for "dismantle and replace" of vital institutions. I still think healthcare needs to be reformed, and I hope that insurance will someday be a thing of a past, but I've hung up my chain saw for now.

squigz 6mo ago
This is because "dismantle and replace" (or perhaps in other words, "defunding") is not a serious, viable solution to many of the societal issues we face. Things were ruined slowly. They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too.
- ianbutler 6mo ago
  I don't think that's going to work. We need broad political change and then that has to work rapidly to legislate this. I don't think slow and steady has done anything but lead to the decay our institutions over the last 70 years.
  - zbentley 6mo ago
    I think that both this and GP are misguided. The pace of societal change in a given direction is neither inherently proportional to the pace of change in a different direction (GP) nor is the pace part of the direction (you). You have to engage with the specific historical events/factors that led to the direction and the pace in order to change either. Broad statements like "society is big so change has to be slow" are just as unwarranted as "slow change results in decline". There's a correct answer to "how quickly can change in a new direction be achieved". It will probably only become known after the fact. It will certainly not be model-able as a function with variables for "progressive or not" and "speed of change".
    - ianbutler 6mo ago
      My argument is more along the lines of "slow change has resulted in decline observably for the time period I have observed it and we should try catalyzing something else" I grant that whether that winds up being fast or slow even if the attempt is intended to be fast is out of my or anyone's hands for the most part as the system dampens that barring total collapse and chaos :P
- andrekandre 6mo ago
  > They unfortunately will need to be fixed very slowly too. this can work until you hit a crisis point; i think one issue is we are sliding faster in the wrong direction (increasing bureaucracy, increasing fees, wait times, overwork etc) so "slowly" can work but only if its "fast enough" if you get what i mean (people are really suffering out there)
tehjoker 6mo ago
You've witnessed a dismantle and replace effort by the right wing that wishes to squeeze everything to make rich people more money. An effort by the left would destroy the private insurance scheme and build up medicare. Completely different and you'd get something functional. When the wrong targets get destroyed, everyone suffers. When parasitic forces are destroyed, the system functions better. It's the difference between defense and friendly fire.
- lpcvoid 6mo ago
  Why is this downvoted? What the (far) right wing has done to american institutions is incredibly destructive and it will take decades to fix it, if that's even possible. People are hurting because of it.
- kortilla 6mo ago
  We already had an effort by the left. You can “no true scotsmen” if you want, but it represents the reality of what will happen when ideals clash a sector that makes up 18% of the GDP. What’s going to be different now than in 2010?
  - e584 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - myko 6mo ago
    Are you referring to the ACA here? That was a compromise bill that props up the current system in the US, primarily created by right leaning centrists.
  - BigTTYGothGF 6mo ago
    > We already had an effort by the left. You mean the one based on Mitt Romney's approach?
    - kortilla 6mo ago
      Yep, that Obama spearheaded and was the keystone piece of legislation of the entire administration
ianbutler 6mo ago
It's increased mine if it works for the repugnant morons in government right now we can use the same playbook for positive change.
- SauntSolaire 6mo ago
  It's easy to destroy but hard to create. If your goal is to further destroy then I suppose that's achievable, but I have a hard time picturing what positive change is going to come from it.
  - ianbutler 6mo ago
    No offense, but this comes off as passive indifference and while I've heard people say things like this all my life it has broadly resulted in watching 30 years of societal decay. I can't help but think this is wrong. We should have stacked the courts ourselves, brandished executive orders etc, had some spine. Edit: I think I need to make clear my thinking that the right has selectively destroyed institutions and levied them in other areas where it makes sense for their agenda. It's not been wanton. So when I say leverage the playbook it's not a one sided act of destruction.
    - SauntSolaire 6mo ago
      Let's say, hypothetically, you had two political parties — a "destroy the current institutions" party, and the "preserve the current institutions" party. The latter might notice the former having an easier time, but "hey, it works for them" is the wrong takeaway. Commit to the hard work of building resilient institutions; don't join in the destruction because it's easier. There's also an element of "Never (...), they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
      - ianbutler 6mo ago
        The republicans are building things not just destroying is the point. It’s just stuff you wont like. This is why Im not a democrat. The left hasn't been able to effect change or be useful ever [my entire life], sure loves to moralize though.
HPsquared 6mo ago
Replace first, then the old broken one will fade away.