Please tell me if you figure it out. As near as I can tell, there's a profound distrust in any mandatory collective action (aka government) especially the closer to the federal level you get. Voluntary collective action is praiseworthy.
Maybe this is due to unique characteristics of Americans, as documented by de Tocqueville? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville
The US is screwed until they fix their discourse.
We have an expression, “it’s a free country”. But if you go to Mexico, the pharmacy will just sell you anything short of controlled substances—antibiotics, heart medication, whatever. In the US you need a prescription from a doctor. We’re not a free country by a long shot.
> Believe me, a decent chunk of Americans don’t even understand the concept of freedom.
The government overreaching doesn't mean people don't understand the concept of freedom, just that the establishment has grown too influential.
What I can’t figure out is why one state out of the fifty can’t do healthcare. That’s how it stayed in Canada, in one province.
That's what a constitution is for, it's an agreement between the people and government on how they wish to be governed. Ours sets out our God given rights that no government should be able to take away.
The Australian government hasn't been too kind to its people recently during covid, carrying people off for facebook posts, not a great example.
Because of the peculiar configuration of the US Senate, these interests hold an outsized sway on the public, and they’ve managed to maintain an extended campaign to create a strange coalition of people against abortion, for guns, against taxes (especially inheritance taxes), and pro subsidy of agriculture, petroleum and real estate and traditional values.
That combo attracts a bunch of unrelated cohorts of voters passionate about a wedge issue, many of whom join together in a cause that is often not in their personal interest or normal mode of thought.
The stigma with government services is that "these people need help and they will always need help, they will never contribute to society"
I'm not saying the stigma is correct - but that is likely a common rational behind the emotions
its the cicle of life really
I hear this a lot but I don't see people explaining what exactly their desired outcome looks like, and to me, I can see lots of ways it potentially changes things without actually improving them.
Are you picturing a world where before you call an ambulance after injuring yourself you have to get on something like yelp to look at prices for 10 different ambulance services, and ten different local urgent care or ERs? Are you picturing a world where it's obvious that some surgeons and doctors are 10 times better than others, so the rich pay $$$$$$ for 10x better care, and the poor are left with the scraps? Or a world where it's hard to tell, so people compete on price alone, and the doctors who care most about outcomes vs bottom line are at a disadvantage?
When I take myself to the doctor no one can tell me how much anything costs.
Regardless of insurance status the vet gets paid the same amount.
My pets get better healthcare then I do and I pay less for it and they don’t have insurance. I’m relatively healthy, my cat has FIV. I have insurance my pets don’t.
Not an American so asking out of curiosity - don't hospitals have price lists?
If you're well insured, you still get all the fun reading material, but they say "amount you owe: 0.00"
When my wife was first pregnant, we had health insurance amd we picked a hospital whose business was 50% baby delivery.
Not a single person could tell me how much it would cost to deliver the child. The OBG couldn't tell me. My health Insurance couldn't tell me. The hospital couldn't tell me. I know - for a fact - the hospital had delivered babies from other people with my insurance. They couldn't tell me the cost of a delivery.
Also, someone screwed something up and I was improperly charged for a hearing test. SMH.
Because the federal government insures the poor and old, the law requires that they get the best pricing. So every other insurer pays a little more, until you get to an uninsured person, who pays some unfathomable rate.
While it's a step in the right direction, most people don't know about it, the accuracy is questionable, what insurance will cover isn't clear, and what random additional fees will be added are unknown.
https://healthcareexecintelligence.healthitanalytics.com/new...
Isn't this the case already?
I mean, it could probably be worse, but I doubt Bill Gates will go to the same clinic that I do.
The first camp claims our ethnicity/race/class/region/religion/gender/identity has historically been oppressed. The most effective means to redress this injustice is by Federal government action. We want the Federal government, Washington D.C., to resolve our issues. The more government is involved, the better.
The second camp is a reaction to the first. The second camp believes the past is the past. The USA is doing just fine if stop meddling with what the Founding Fathers created. "Government is not the answer to our problems but is the cause of our problems". The less government is involved, the better.
EDIT: I want to add that the above is constantly aggravated by opportunistic politicians and toxic media (both traditional and social media)
...
As for the article, Empathy is what separates us from psychopaths, so it's not surprising that a Yale Psychologist would want to damage it to help his political slant. That said, I would say it's unfortunate that people can be fooled and conned easily due to their empathy, but I'm not sure there's fix besides destroying high-trust society altogether. The professor is not concerned with this downside of empathy, I don't think.
>> The second problem is the innumeracy. Empathy zooms me in on one but it doesn’t attend to the difference between one and 100 or one and 1,000. It’s because of empathy we often care more about a single person than 100 people or 1,000 people, or we care more about an attractive white girl who went missing than we do a 1,000 starving children who don’t look we do or live where we don’t live.
Having read the article and briefly interacted with Paul Bloom, I can't say that I share your perspective as to his political agenda.
It is not the main point here, but psychopats are sociable and can have a very high form of cognitive empathy. They can also be very charizmatic.
Also, I dont think the parent was saying Paul Bloom himself is psychopath. It was saying that he is pushing others to think that way, because that is congruent with his political ideology. That is different claim.