Many wars are simply what you’d expect from violent leaders who realize they can order other people into combat for them. But some wars really are for the greater good. There are definitely militaries that I want to see win, and militaries that I want to see lose.
I realize I don’t have any code that would be of any use to any military. If I did, I don’t see how I could write a license to allow the use of my code by only people I agree with.
You can write whatever you want in a license, including something as vague as “you can only use this code if I agree with your moral stances”. (For expediency, it might be worth enumerating the cases.)
The OSI might disapprove, but you don’t have to listen to them.
> 1. A number of other developed countries have UHC while also allowing a private system as well - what is unique about the US that other countries' existing approach couldn't work here?
Mainly, expectations. I understand that UHC in European countries doesn’t cover all the things Americans assume it does.
Japan apparently keeps costs down by not using cutting-edge drugs. That’s not going to happen in the US.
The US Congress just isn’t good at keeping costs down.
> 2. ... why wouldn't providers choose to stop serving medicare patients under the pre-2026 system, where giving up medicare patients would be a far smaller loss than in a world where everyone has medicare?
They absolutely do. Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid. The payments just aren’t high enough.
The US is dead last in terms of health outcomes among every developed country (despite spending far more), but you believe expectations will cause every other developed country's system to fail here? I guess your argument is that the propaganda machine pushing the idea that America's healthcare is not the worst in terms of outcomes (while also being about the most expensive), would prevent Americans from accepting no longer having the worst results and the highest costs?
> Many providers don’t accept Medicare. Very few providers accept Medicaid.
1. About the same percent accept Medicare as private insurance (85-90%, while ~70% accept Medicaid - is that "very few"?).
2. "Medicare for all" is one of the primary proposals being discussed.
3. Previous smaller expansions of government healthcare resulted in expanded provider capacity to handle them, not less, but your argument is that we'd see the opposite results from further expansion?
4. And in this new world where everyone had Medicare or similar, your argument is that providers would choose to ignore most patients, where they don't under the existing system where government-sponsored healthcare makes up a significantly smaller portion of the customer base?
5. And your argument is that if the government finds that healthcare providers contract to the point that outcomes remain the worst among every developed country, as they are today, that the government would be unwilling to make any changes (such as reimbursement rates) to address this?
> The US is dead last in terms of health outcomes among every developed country (despite spending far more), but you believe expectations will cause every other developed country's system to fail here? I guess your argument is that the propaganda machine pushing the idea that America's healthcare is not the worst in terms of outcomes (while also being about the most expensive), would prevent Americans from accepting no longer having the worst results and the highest costs?
The argument is that the US system has a much lower floor, which leads to the bad health outcomes, but also generates a lot of people who expect and demand more than most universal healthcare systems would give them. An Uber driver with the cheapest marketplace plan he could find would benefit greatly from any universal healthcare system; a guy with really bad ulcerative colitis (https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...) would likely not be able to get a prescription for a cocktail of drugs at non-FDA-approved doses costing $2M/year.
I’m saying the US won’t implement anything like what other countries implement. I honestly think Philip Greenspun’s proposal ( https://philip.greenspun.com/politics/health-care-reform ) makes sense but has no chance of being implemented. Americans asking for some kind of single payer system are expecting something better than basic health care.
I remember when President Obama suggested “maybe you’re better off not getting the surgery but taking the painkiller” ( https://youtu.be/rin4h4cRs6Y ). That seemed to surprise many of the people who wanted a single payer option. He stopped suggesting that kind of cost-cutting that very quickly.
I also remember when a few people received anthrax in the mail. Every news story said that people who had any contact with the letter had received Cipro to avoid developing an infection. After a couple of weeks, the government actually announced that other (cheaper) antibiotics were effective against anthrax, but it was obvious that no company was going to hand their employees something other than Cipro.
Incidentally, my autistic adult son has Medicaid. I don’t think I’ve yet found a doctor who will accept it. Luckily he’s also on my health insurance.
I've seen plenty of restaurants with a disclaimer that they have (often unspecified) allergens in the kitchen, and even if the allergen isn't in the ingredient list, it's possible they came in contact with anything in the restaurant. Most people wouldn't have a problem with peanut dust floating through the store, but apparently some people are sensitive enough that trace contamination like that can be a problem.
When I make, say, meat loaf, at home, I know that I use ground beef, Panko, egg, onion, ketchup, vinegar, oregano, and garlic. If somebody asks whether there's ground beef, wheat, onion, tomato, vinegar, oregano, or garlic in the food, I believe a waiter could give a correct answer. But if somebody asks about yeast, or high fructose corn syrup, the waiter might have to ask the cook, and the cook might need to look at the label for the Panko or ketchup (surprise! packaging for restaurants may not have the same information as consumer packaging).
If somebody orders, say, ribs, and mentions they are allergic to spices that are found in some barbecue sauces or spice rubs, the waiter isn't going to know (and the cook might not know) if those spices are in the dish, and especially won't know if they're present in a large enough amount to cause a reaction.
The FDA does require manufacturers to keep track of the most common allergens ( https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critica... ), but if somebody has an uncommon allergy, they're on their own. Restaurants are regulated by state health departments instead of the USDA. California, I believe, has some allergen labeling requirements for its restaurants. Most large restaurants worry enough about liability that they disclose the information (for common allergens) voluntarily.
This is an interesting detail to learn about history. However, like the article mentions near the end, the Gregorian calendar was adopted at different times in different countries. The Anglican Church didn’t trust the Catholics, so Great Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_1750 ). And they did their best to hide the fact that they were adopting a Catholic invention: it’s the “New Style Calendar” and they came up with a different way to choose the same date for Easter.
1752 is late enough that Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others were born before that change.
I think that’s the reason that programming languages tend to adopt the proleptic Gregorian calendar and leave it up to the programmer to figure out when the calendar was adopted in the countries they care about.
Except that countries apparently had to answer various questions when they adopted the Gregorian calendar, and they didn’t all chose the same answers. Ideally, we’d have something like tzdb but for calendar adoption. But I guess the need doesn’t come up all that often.
1752 is before the invention of timezones, but that adds another curiousity about "what date did X happen?". On the calendar of Country A it could've been October 31, 1752, and on the calendar of Country B it would've been October 21...
The British (including the American colonies) also did an arguably even more confusing calendar change in 1752, by switching the start of the new year from March 25 to January 1.
“Despite the unification of the Scottish and English royal crowns with the accession of King James VI and I in 1603, and even the union of the kingdoms themselves in 1707, England continued to use Annunciation Style while Scotland used Modern Style. This led to the act being recorded at the time in England as 6 March 1706 (rather than 1707), because in England (unlike Scotland) it fell before the new year began (on 25 March).”
“WHEREAS the legal Supputation of the Year of our Lord in that Part of Great Britain called England, according to which the Year beginneth on the 25th Day of March, hath been found by Experience to be attended with divers Inconveniencies, not only as it differs from the Usage of neighbouring Nations, but also from the legal Method of Computation in that Part of Great Britain called Scotlond, and from the common Usage throughout the whole Kingdom, and thereby frequent Mistakes are occasioned in the Dates of Deeds, and other Writings, and Disputes arise therefrom.”
Although, I think “common usage” in that statement implies that it was common to just do what other countries did, except when filling out legal documents.
Yeah, and why not? There's nothing special about January 1. It's kinda like the international date line: you have to choose somewhere. Although it does seem quite practical to have the year begin on the first day of a month.
I remember seeing advice, years ago, to let lettuce sit in a weak bleach solution before use. But I doubt that’s ever been followed by many people. Current advice (at least at home) seems to be to rinse lettuce to remove dirt ( https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/safe-handling-of-lettuce-... ). Apparently most health problems from lettuce are on the surface and not particularly hard to get off.
I wouldn't classify bagged salad as an ultra processed food as it's usually just cut and cleaned leaves from the various ingredients. It's not like they pour all the leaves into a machine and get soylent green out of the other end.
I realize I don’t have any code that would be of any use to any military. If I did, I don’t see how I could write a license to allow the use of my code by only people I agree with.