Most of the powerful corporations in 1982 no longer exist or are much smaller because there is great turnover in corporate power. Governments don't lose power unless they lose a war, a rare event today that was common 100 years ago.
Especially look at military contractors, which consolidated significantly since the early 1990s, an intentional change desired by the Department of Defense.
> Governments don't lose power unless they lose a war, a rare event today that was common 100 years ago.
A good point, but of course they do lose power with every election - that's the point, a peaceful transition of power.
"governments" may not, but the political parties running them certainly do. And changes in political parties can change what services government delivers. Heck, you don't even need a change in parties for that to happen.
One of many modest-sized if not necessarily small cuts. But Afghanistan did not, say, defeat and invade the Soviet Union.
It out-endured them within its own territory. Much as has happened to the US several times, with resulting embarrassment but not regime change.
Military spending on the part of the US, falling global oil prices, multiple internal contradictions and failures, revolt within Warsaw Pact states, and growing internal dissent were far more significant contributors to the ultimate fall.
I have very little sympathy towards the Soviet empire, but the war remained on the Afghan side of the border, and was of a limited scope for most of its duration; construing the Soviet defeat into a direct cause of regime collapse is an extraordinary claim warranting extraordinary proof.
For example, one wouldn't claim that the de-facto American loss of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly affecting the stability of the American regime, would they?
Coming back to the Soviets, I would concur to a claim that the Afghan War was a failed national project, alongside the Chernobyl tragedy and the ecological disaster of the Aral Sea. The narrative I think proper here is first and foremost is the ordinary Soviet citizen's loss of trust in the Soviet way as such, rather than the specific fear of a foreign invasion.
It would be worse for the United States dollar, probably. The D in USD historically could’ve been associated with “Diplomacy”— the military was willing and able to globally enforce the value of the US Dollar by favoring countries that willingly supported its hegemony.
When no one relies upon us any more, what makes our dollars and debts so special? What’s to stop everyone from taking their ball and going to play somewhere else? From calling in debts, from reneging on debts to us, from accepting our dollars, from providing land for military bases, from honoring our passports… because that is what happens to nearly every other country not at the Top.
The global order currently only works in our favor because we’re on top. We are the ones who lose the most when other countries don’t need us, not the other way around.
Europe has its own industry, but countries have made sure that they buy a significant amount of weapons from the US to keep them happy. That limits the size of the EU industry.
There have been many stories of EU countries choosing the American alternative, even if it was more expensive. In return, they expected some goodwill from US.
So when you read stories about EU countries not spending enough, consider that a large part of what they do spend goes to the US to appease them.
Doctors in the United States are paid more than doctors in Norway and Switzerland even though those countries are richer and our doctors aren't better.
I don't think $100-200 per year for preventative care is enough. I reckon $1000-$10,000 per year, depending on age, is more accurate. You should spend at least $500 per year on nutritional supplements like Vitamin D. Switzerland has a better medical system that's cheaper than our system, but it's still expensive.
I want surgeons to decline any case that looks technically difficult. A better surgeon should handle those cases. I want them to decline cases where lots of preexisting conditions that put them at risk for complications after the surgery, too. I'm worried about surgeons who never decline cases, who are eager to cut and maximize profits. We need more malpractice lawsuits so that surgeons become more willing to decline cases.
> I want surgeons to decline any case that looks technically difficult. A better surgeon should handle those cases.
Already happens all the time, although it's at the discretion of the first surgeon. Again, it's difficult to formulate objective criteria for when a surgeon should forward a case on to someone else.
I don't believe that surgeons obviously over operate.
In my career I've seen
- A case where the surgical team declined to operate for endocarditis with congestive heart failure, despite the fact that the society guidelines recommend surgery in that scenario
- A case where the surgical team declined to operate for a spinal cord injury that left a patient paralyzed from the neck down (and dependent on machines to breathe due to the paralysis affecting their diaphragm)
- A case where the surgical team declined to operate on an abscess even after a patient's blood stream infection failed to clear after two weeks of the strongest IV antibiotics
In all the first and third cases, the disease turned terminal after our surgical team declined to operate. In the second example the patient opted to die rather than live the rest of their life on a ventilator and I was left with the responsibility of arranging hospice for the patient.
I'll admit that these are extreme cases, but my point is the patients and family members in those cases likely had a very different view about whether surgeons should decline high risk surgeries as often as they do, let alone more often.
I don’t. I want the surgeon to clearly state their concerns and the risks, but the patient to decide if it’s worth the risk. After all, it’s his/her life.
Getting rid of pennies/nickels sure, but where does the gold standard come in?
You want to tie the economy to a material that doesn't capture economic growth and which also has its remaining stores in areas of the world not owned by your nation?
If Google wasn't lying to me with its response, the current USA gdp is over $20 trillion, and the US owns around $200 billion in gold.
Wouldn't tying gold to the current economy either devalue the dollar or inflate the current value of gold before locking the country into a state of economic stagnation?
No? It's a very simple logical deduction. We know what types of systems these countries have and we know their health outcomes. They're the opposite of what they claimed in no uncertain terms.
Parent said that if your employer pays for your healthcare (which is pretty much the system in the US) or your government pays (which is the system in several other countries) you'll be less healthy than if you pay yourself. That's not what you seem to have understood from the parent comment
What percentage of the US population has their health coverage FULLY covered by their employer or the government, such that they don't financially feel the effects of their health choices, i.e. no out of pocket premiums and deductibles?
As far as I'm aware that's nearly non-existent.
Let's stop mincing words, clearly what they meant was that people who don't have to pay for their healthcare won't take care of their health.
Do you really think this description applies to the US where people are afraid to go to the GP and even to the ER for financial reasons?
Haha! This little conversation between is getting ridiculous but sure. Let's keep going. Original comment said with my interpretations in brackets:
"If your employer [probably referring to the United States System?] or the government [probably refers to the European socialized medicine systems?] pays for your healthcare, you'll be unhealthy. If you pay, you'll be healthy."
At first you seemed too think our friend was saying that under socialized medicine people are less healthy than in the US. I pointed out that's not what was said. Now you seem to agree that our friend was saying that you'll be healthier if you pay for healthcare yourself (neither the US or the European model). I agree with that interpretation.
You now want to argue that the assertion is false. Note that the original poster has not responded once and is very likely blissfully unaware that this discussion is taking place. I am, but I didn't chime in to argue that point. I just wanted to clarify what I thought the original poster was saying. It is an interesting debate (more interesting than whether the current US system or the Euro system is better), but honestly, since it was this difficult just to come to the understanding of what was really up for debate, I'm kinda tired and not interested in continuing.
