Conservatives are 100% correct to fetishize the enormous cost of health care. But fixing it by taking away people’s insurance is not the solution. We need to reduce the cost of providing health care to each individual. I wasn’t (and still am not) a fan of ACA because it focused less on reducing costs than on changing who pays for those costs.
It’s a shame that the Jared Golden position has so little influence in our government. “Red state Democrats” probably are our most unrepresented sector of the population. They are minorities in their own state and within their own party. The Democrats pander to them for their votes but then treat them as a nuisance once in power. It would be great if a popular and charismatic leader emerged from this group and shook up the party in a similar way Trump did to the establishment of the Republican Party. A moderate or compassionate conservative agenda focused on common sense solutions would align with a lot of people’s own values nationally and allow Democrats to compete in all 50 states. And, it would change the national conversation to deal with issues important to everyday people rather than the culture war crap we have fought over for the last decade.
There are many more and better examples of stationary bandits at the national level. Health insurance companies, tax accountants, and defense contractors all come to mind
There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical!
The thing that befuddles me on the NYC Mayoral primary is why in the hell was Cuomo the only moderate? How is it that no other moderate decided to run?
There were moderates - neither of them gained purchase within the electorate because Cuomo was well-known and NYC elected officials were scared of retribrution from Cuomo and his backers if they supported said moderate and Cuomo still won.
Ironically, that is also what happened in 2016 - Hillary was less corrupt obviously, but there was a general vibe that if you went against Hillary when it was Her Turn, you were dead within the party once she was in power, so the only people willing to run against her was Carcetti from the Wire and some old socialist from Vermont.
“Which is to say ask if there are specific, concrete ways that digital technology is making life worse (alongside the many ways that it is making life better) and try to propose remedies.”
Great point and Derek Thompson wrote today about the need for specificity in policy proposals (with a quote from MY)!
Even on a broader scale than Star Wars, there's a theme throughout a substantial proportion of science fiction that essentially argues that the far future will look more like the distant past today. Battlestar Galactica is obviously a very literal interpretation of that view, but it's the same worldview that underpins something like Dune as well, where endless expansion into the cosmos means that the people on the fringes are once again bound by the concerns of scarcity. As an abstract concept, I'm not sure that I buy into it, but Star Wars isn't exactly alone in its use of said trope.
Regarding the answer on Star Wars, I agree the original trilogy is more like a western in space than sci-fi (and the prequel trilogy is more Shakespeare in space) and that explains why the jobs and cultures we see in the movies are so relatively familiar, + Lucas' anti-tech hippy beliefs. Obviously the Rebels use technology more advanced than ours, but its the Empire always pushing the boundaries of what is possible (clones in PT and Death Stars in OT (though in Empire Strikes Back the boundary-pushing tech is keeping humans alive while carbon freezing them)). The implication is technology is good "to a point." Oh and of course Darth Vader (and General Grevious, to a lesser extent), is the ultimate "push the boundaries of technology" by synthesizing man and machine into one thing, while the Wookies in PT and Ewoks in OT represent the "noble savage" side of things.
Some of the reason for the jobs being so ordinary is the medium. Because these are stories about characters and personal struggle there isn't much time to let us get distracted by world-building. Farms and mines and fixing things are pretty easy jobs to explain quickly in cinema. All you need on screen is a person saying the word harvest, a dirty person emerging from darkness, or somebody using a wrench and voila, the audience now has a ton of information about that person. Office jobs don't translate as interestingly (we really only see Imperial meetings in the OT when there's a conflict, and we don't see a lot of politicking in the Senate, just a couple of speeches, reactions, and votes.).
Farming, mining (and more generally gathering), and fixing are I think permanent fixtures of humanity. We will always need to grow food, gather the materials, the fix our tools. Perhaps one day we'll be able to fully automate growing and gathering completely, but it also may be cheaper to hire people who need money for work. Plus I can imagine there's always a marketting benefit to "hand-picked". If I had to choose a time to be a farmer, miner, or fixer, I would absolutely not choose 8000 BCE. It's easier, better paying, and more automated now than before, and that will increase as time continues to go on. I am, obviously, not in the camp that tech is good "to a point." Some tech is bad, but I think overall technological development is positive.
(Meanwhile, this doesn't occur at all within the timeframe of the SW movies. There doesn't seem to be any improvement toward improving the tech of moisture farming - or any consideration of trading for water in exchange for whatever mining resources must be on Tatooine, or something for which twin suns must be an advantage (Tourism? Solar power?), despite the obvious advantages it would be for the residents to lean into some local strength rather than what must be the most difficult resource for them to harvest).
As for the poverty, part of it is the OT is the story of rebels against the Empire, and I think Lucas necessarily sees poverty as part of why they are rebels. Han's (and Lando's) struggle initially is "if I have enough money can't I just ignore galactic tyranny?" The Bounty Hunters and Jabba don't oppose the empire because they can still make a buck (within and without the system). Leia, Padme and the Jedi, who are motivated by anti-tyranny ideology, are the exceptions. Most people take Anakin's view that the form of government doesn't matter "if it works."
The PT does not show nearly as much poverty, perhaps because the main characters are not rebelling against but very much part of the system that will become the Empire. Naboo doesn't seem to have any beggars, even Tatooine doesn't seem as poor as it is in OT, it's just corrupted by slave trade and gambling because the Republic isn't there to enforce the law. The Separatists are not very poor either, they just want to become even richer by getting rid of the Republic's regulations. If the OT is about poverty (of power and wealth) VS centralization (of the same) then the PT is about corruption.
So I think both the future where people still need to farm/mine/fix is inevitable, *and* there will always be richer and poorer people, *and* the poorer people will be the ones doing those things (because the richer people will have the money to pay them to do it). And occasionally the gulf between poor and rich will lead to a rebellion, or corruption will undermine the system from within. But I also think the future will be a techno-utopia compared to the past. Can you imagine the thrill of a time-automated sprinkler to an iron-age, or even 18th century, farmer? SW uses sci-fi primarily as a setting and not a storytelling device, in a way similar to Firefly. Star Trek, Three Body Problem, and I, Robot are where to go if you want sci-fi stories.
That was much longer than I expected - thanks for reading! "Sometimes I amaze even myself." And if anyone is interested here's a collection of SW short stories (https://maslowswstories.blogspot.com/) where my unwritten rule was "these characters, if they existed in our world, would be likely Trump voters", where I will also be posting the essay above, because I cannot stand the idea of it existing only in this comments section.
Not sure if it's still true but the big thing with Tatooine is that there aren't substantial mineral resources (I don't know why not but considering every planet in the galaxy far, far away is a single biome...); the Jawa sandcrawler is an ancient abandoned mining rig.
It must be on some popular hyper space routes because everyone on that planet except the Tusken Raiders are traders. Did podracing bring in tourists? Surely the racers and their crews need a place to stay and spend their money.
I think Tatooine could go the Gulf States route of letting intergalactic businesses set up shop on their cheap empty land and beautiful dual sun views off backbreaking labor of locals and migrants. But is tourism enough of an economic base? Or do they need some kind of material resource like oil build around.
I think Firefly still has a difference in that each episode explores a cultural difference of the place they go, rather than just having the different planets be cosmetic differences.
But all the shown cultures have clear Earth mirrors. Cattle ranches, Bazaar/Slums, extremely nice hospitals, a broken ship. It's an adventure in space, but that's just the setting. The sci-fi elements are River and the Reavers (but not the Serenity version - victims of secret government plot is obviously a well-worn story).
Having lived and worked in NE Florida for over 12 years, I can tell you the state “thrives” (quotes on purpose) because of three things:
1. OMG HOUSES ARE CHEAP (you’re getting a plot of land on fill dirt on a swamp with ZERO local amenities or infrastructure)
2. No state income, so a great place to take your retirement and wait to die
3. It’s warm
There’s really no industry cluster except maybe entertainment in Orlando or a handful of international conglomerates that need access to ports in Miami. Pay for my current job is maybe 60% what it is in Oregon. When we left Florida and moved here, I doubled my income…after having worked a job for 12 years.
Florida is just a cheap place that’s warm with fun stuff to do for tourists. That’s about it.
a quibble about the oft repeated argument that young men who are unemployed rarely use health insurance so they are not really using up resources. if they were employed, then they would be paying into other insurance systems and thus supporting those. without this, the system is under more strain.
A quibble about this quibble: the original (Republican) claim is that the young men are moochers or parasites, somehow accessing Medicaid benefits while playing League of Legends in their mom's basement.
The argument that you're rebutting is that these men are not mooching parasites because, statistically, they aren't really accessing healthcare much at all. The young men are, well, young and overall as a group not really that sick so they can't really be considered mooching parasites.
If I understand it, your rebuttal to that is that these men, by not paying into the system, are putting it under strain. So is the argument that these men are mooching parasites because they are not allowing others to moochingly parasitize *them*? Like, by virtue of not paying more into the system than they get out (in effect, getting scammed) the young Fortnite playing men are themselves somehow scamming the system? Like, it's just crazy to me to claim that not allowing oneself to be moochingly parasitized, not getting scammed -- that act itself makes a person into a parasitic moocher scammer! I understand how insurance works by having lower risk people subsidize higher risk people but I just have trouble labelling someone a parasite simply because other people are not able to parasitize off of them! In this situation, the mooching parasites are clearly the higher-risk people who would be subsidized by the mom's-basement dwelling men, no?
i'm not labeling anyone at all a parasite in either situation. i'm just pointing out that most of the health care systems i am aware of (throughout the world) involve younger, healthier working adults subsidizing sicker, older ones. so, more people choosing not to work puts more strain on such a system even if those people are healthy and rarely use the healthcare system. nobody is getting `scammed' or `mooched' here. there is no need to turn politics into a morality play. it almost never works and is just a way of playing to your base.
On the star wars question I think there’s an answer which some of the AI people point to which makes some sense—we can end up with a prosperous dystopia if machines remain generally bad at fine motor skills and just expensive enough that humans’ comparative advantage is only the most menial of work
It’s clear why health care is an exception to Americans’ mostly individualistic attitudes: seriously sick and injured people cannot realistically care for themselves and it is obviously unfair for people to be financially ruined because they had the misfortune to get an expensive disease. Only the rich, and those who have never been sick or responsible for caring for someone who is, could fail to realize this.
Personal experience overrules ideology. Health care is not a personal responsibility because it cannot be.
The DOGE thing frustrated me because I do think there are ways to make the government more efficient (I'll sidestep the conversation about what qualifies as "waste"). It's just not usually by randomly slashing spending. For instance, 1% of the entire federal budget goes to dialysis. Anything that lowers the cost of that saves money. Also, unpopular, but we could probably take the green eyeshade to end of life care. We spend a lot at the very end for not a whole lot of gain. Long story short, there are ways to save money in the federal budget, but none of them are sexy.
Adding to Matt’s answer about Republicans and healthcare, the most disappointing thing about the traditional Republican Party is that they said they were for market based solutions but never really pushed for these solutions nationwide except as a counter to Democratic legislations like Obamacare. Some of the solutions that I would like to see are -
1. Decoupling healthcare insurance from employers by getting rid of the preferential tax treatment of employer provided insurance. Unions are the main villains here.
2. Making it easy to import drugs from other countries where it’s cheaper. I'm not a fan of the government negotiating drug prices. If rent control is bad, so is this kind of policy.
3. Reform in medical education. Allowing students to start an integrated medical degree program right after high school, which is the case in most countries.
4. Portability of healthcare insurance across states, like cell phone numbers. You should be able to get treatment from any state where it’s cheaper in exchange for lower co-pay.
5. Allow a family HSA account regardless of other forms of insurance where people can set aside some money for emergencies. It can be funded by post tax but qualified withdrawals can be tax exempt. This is one of my pet peeves about the current system. Throughout our lives, we pay insurance premiums directly or indirectly to various insurance providers but there’s no long term credit for being in good health or for paying those premiums. The current HSA is very limited and usually tied to the employer. This takes care of the lifecycle management of healthcare insurance. Obviously, single payer is also a solution for this but I’ve grown very skeptical that the US federal government is capable of doing it well.
I'd add on to that making it easier for doctors from other countries to qualify in the United States. The doctors' guilds strangle the supply of qualified physicians just to keep wages high.
Never underestimate the importance of good moderators and reasonable moderating rules to generate a positive comments section. It also helps when the comments section is relatively small.
Conservatives are 100% correct to fetishize the enormous cost of health care. But fixing it by taking away people’s insurance is not the solution. We need to reduce the cost of providing health care to each individual. I wasn’t (and still am not) a fan of ACA because it focused less on reducing costs than on changing who pays for those costs.
It’s a shame that the Jared Golden position has so little influence in our government. “Red state Democrats” probably are our most unrepresented sector of the population. They are minorities in their own state and within their own party. The Democrats pander to them for their votes but then treat them as a nuisance once in power. It would be great if a popular and charismatic leader emerged from this group and shook up the party in a similar way Trump did to the establishment of the Republican Party. A moderate or compassionate conservative agenda focused on common sense solutions would align with a lot of people’s own values nationally and allow Democrats to compete in all 50 states. And, it would change the national conversation to deal with issues important to everyday people rather than the culture war crap we have fought over for the last decade.
There are many more and better examples of stationary bandits at the national level. Health insurance companies, tax accountants, and defense contractors all come to mind
Curiously, in those maps, only NY and HI get poorer when you move to the supplemental measure.
There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical!
The thing that befuddles me on the NYC Mayoral primary is why in the hell was Cuomo the only moderate? How is it that no other moderate decided to run?
There were moderates - neither of them gained purchase within the electorate because Cuomo was well-known and NYC elected officials were scared of retribrution from Cuomo and his backers if they supported said moderate and Cuomo still won.
Ironically, that is also what happened in 2016 - Hillary was less corrupt obviously, but there was a general vibe that if you went against Hillary when it was Her Turn, you were dead within the party once she was in power, so the only people willing to run against her was Carcetti from the Wire and some old socialist from Vermont.
“Which is to say ask if there are specific, concrete ways that digital technology is making life worse (alongside the many ways that it is making life better) and try to propose remedies.”
Great point and Derek Thompson wrote today about the need for specificity in policy proposals (with a quote from MY)!
Even on a broader scale than Star Wars, there's a theme throughout a substantial proportion of science fiction that essentially argues that the far future will look more like the distant past today. Battlestar Galactica is obviously a very literal interpretation of that view, but it's the same worldview that underpins something like Dune as well, where endless expansion into the cosmos means that the people on the fringes are once again bound by the concerns of scarcity. As an abstract concept, I'm not sure that I buy into it, but Star Wars isn't exactly alone in its use of said trope.
Regarding the answer on Star Wars, I agree the original trilogy is more like a western in space than sci-fi (and the prequel trilogy is more Shakespeare in space) and that explains why the jobs and cultures we see in the movies are so relatively familiar, + Lucas' anti-tech hippy beliefs. Obviously the Rebels use technology more advanced than ours, but its the Empire always pushing the boundaries of what is possible (clones in PT and Death Stars in OT (though in Empire Strikes Back the boundary-pushing tech is keeping humans alive while carbon freezing them)). The implication is technology is good "to a point." Oh and of course Darth Vader (and General Grevious, to a lesser extent), is the ultimate "push the boundaries of technology" by synthesizing man and machine into one thing, while the Wookies in PT and Ewoks in OT represent the "noble savage" side of things.
Some of the reason for the jobs being so ordinary is the medium. Because these are stories about characters and personal struggle there isn't much time to let us get distracted by world-building. Farms and mines and fixing things are pretty easy jobs to explain quickly in cinema. All you need on screen is a person saying the word harvest, a dirty person emerging from darkness, or somebody using a wrench and voila, the audience now has a ton of information about that person. Office jobs don't translate as interestingly (we really only see Imperial meetings in the OT when there's a conflict, and we don't see a lot of politicking in the Senate, just a couple of speeches, reactions, and votes.).
Farming, mining (and more generally gathering), and fixing are I think permanent fixtures of humanity. We will always need to grow food, gather the materials, the fix our tools. Perhaps one day we'll be able to fully automate growing and gathering completely, but it also may be cheaper to hire people who need money for work. Plus I can imagine there's always a marketting benefit to "hand-picked". If I had to choose a time to be a farmer, miner, or fixer, I would absolutely not choose 8000 BCE. It's easier, better paying, and more automated now than before, and that will increase as time continues to go on. I am, obviously, not in the camp that tech is good "to a point." Some tech is bad, but I think overall technological development is positive.
(Meanwhile, this doesn't occur at all within the timeframe of the SW movies. There doesn't seem to be any improvement toward improving the tech of moisture farming - or any consideration of trading for water in exchange for whatever mining resources must be on Tatooine, or something for which twin suns must be an advantage (Tourism? Solar power?), despite the obvious advantages it would be for the residents to lean into some local strength rather than what must be the most difficult resource for them to harvest).
As for the poverty, part of it is the OT is the story of rebels against the Empire, and I think Lucas necessarily sees poverty as part of why they are rebels. Han's (and Lando's) struggle initially is "if I have enough money can't I just ignore galactic tyranny?" The Bounty Hunters and Jabba don't oppose the empire because they can still make a buck (within and without the system). Leia, Padme and the Jedi, who are motivated by anti-tyranny ideology, are the exceptions. Most people take Anakin's view that the form of government doesn't matter "if it works."
The PT does not show nearly as much poverty, perhaps because the main characters are not rebelling against but very much part of the system that will become the Empire. Naboo doesn't seem to have any beggars, even Tatooine doesn't seem as poor as it is in OT, it's just corrupted by slave trade and gambling because the Republic isn't there to enforce the law. The Separatists are not very poor either, they just want to become even richer by getting rid of the Republic's regulations. If the OT is about poverty (of power and wealth) VS centralization (of the same) then the PT is about corruption.
So I think both the future where people still need to farm/mine/fix is inevitable, *and* there will always be richer and poorer people, *and* the poorer people will be the ones doing those things (because the richer people will have the money to pay them to do it). And occasionally the gulf between poor and rich will lead to a rebellion, or corruption will undermine the system from within. But I also think the future will be a techno-utopia compared to the past. Can you imagine the thrill of a time-automated sprinkler to an iron-age, or even 18th century, farmer? SW uses sci-fi primarily as a setting and not a storytelling device, in a way similar to Firefly. Star Trek, Three Body Problem, and I, Robot are where to go if you want sci-fi stories.
That was much longer than I expected - thanks for reading! "Sometimes I amaze even myself." And if anyone is interested here's a collection of SW short stories (https://maslowswstories.blogspot.com/) where my unwritten rule was "these characters, if they existed in our world, would be likely Trump voters", where I will also be posting the essay above, because I cannot stand the idea of it existing only in this comments section.
Not sure if it's still true but the big thing with Tatooine is that there aren't substantial mineral resources (I don't know why not but considering every planet in the galaxy far, far away is a single biome...); the Jawa sandcrawler is an ancient abandoned mining rig.
It must be on some popular hyper space routes because everyone on that planet except the Tusken Raiders are traders. Did podracing bring in tourists? Surely the racers and their crews need a place to stay and spend their money.
I think Tatooine could go the Gulf States route of letting intergalactic businesses set up shop on their cheap empty land and beautiful dual sun views off backbreaking labor of locals and migrants. But is tourism enough of an economic base? Or do they need some kind of material resource like oil build around.
I think Firefly still has a difference in that each episode explores a cultural difference of the place they go, rather than just having the different planets be cosmetic differences.
But all the shown cultures have clear Earth mirrors. Cattle ranches, Bazaar/Slums, extremely nice hospitals, a broken ship. It's an adventure in space, but that's just the setting. The sci-fi elements are River and the Reavers (but not the Serenity version - victims of secret government plot is obviously a well-worn story).
Having lived and worked in NE Florida for over 12 years, I can tell you the state “thrives” (quotes on purpose) because of three things:
1. OMG HOUSES ARE CHEAP (you’re getting a plot of land on fill dirt on a swamp with ZERO local amenities or infrastructure)
2. No state income, so a great place to take your retirement and wait to die
3. It’s warm
There’s really no industry cluster except maybe entertainment in Orlando or a handful of international conglomerates that need access to ports in Miami. Pay for my current job is maybe 60% what it is in Oregon. When we left Florida and moved here, I doubled my income…after having worked a job for 12 years.
Florida is just a cheap place that’s warm with fun stuff to do for tourists. That’s about it.
a quibble about the oft repeated argument that young men who are unemployed rarely use health insurance so they are not really using up resources. if they were employed, then they would be paying into other insurance systems and thus supporting those. without this, the system is under more strain.
A quibble about this quibble: the original (Republican) claim is that the young men are moochers or parasites, somehow accessing Medicaid benefits while playing League of Legends in their mom's basement.
The argument that you're rebutting is that these men are not mooching parasites because, statistically, they aren't really accessing healthcare much at all. The young men are, well, young and overall as a group not really that sick so they can't really be considered mooching parasites.
If I understand it, your rebuttal to that is that these men, by not paying into the system, are putting it under strain. So is the argument that these men are mooching parasites because they are not allowing others to moochingly parasitize *them*? Like, by virtue of not paying more into the system than they get out (in effect, getting scammed) the young Fortnite playing men are themselves somehow scamming the system? Like, it's just crazy to me to claim that not allowing oneself to be moochingly parasitized, not getting scammed -- that act itself makes a person into a parasitic moocher scammer! I understand how insurance works by having lower risk people subsidize higher risk people but I just have trouble labelling someone a parasite simply because other people are not able to parasitize off of them! In this situation, the mooching parasites are clearly the higher-risk people who would be subsidized by the mom's-basement dwelling men, no?
i'm not labeling anyone at all a parasite in either situation. i'm just pointing out that most of the health care systems i am aware of (throughout the world) involve younger, healthier working adults subsidizing sicker, older ones. so, more people choosing not to work puts more strain on such a system even if those people are healthy and rarely use the healthcare system. nobody is getting `scammed' or `mooched' here. there is no need to turn politics into a morality play. it almost never works and is just a way of playing to your base.
On the star wars question I think there’s an answer which some of the AI people point to which makes some sense—we can end up with a prosperous dystopia if machines remain generally bad at fine motor skills and just expensive enough that humans’ comparative advantage is only the most menial of work
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/robot-dexterity-still-seems-hard
It’s clear why health care is an exception to Americans’ mostly individualistic attitudes: seriously sick and injured people cannot realistically care for themselves and it is obviously unfair for people to be financially ruined because they had the misfortune to get an expensive disease. Only the rich, and those who have never been sick or responsible for caring for someone who is, could fail to realize this.
Personal experience overrules ideology. Health care is not a personal responsibility because it cannot be.
The DOGE thing frustrated me because I do think there are ways to make the government more efficient (I'll sidestep the conversation about what qualifies as "waste"). It's just not usually by randomly slashing spending. For instance, 1% of the entire federal budget goes to dialysis. Anything that lowers the cost of that saves money. Also, unpopular, but we could probably take the green eyeshade to end of life care. We spend a lot at the very end for not a whole lot of gain. Long story short, there are ways to save money in the federal budget, but none of them are sexy.
It always comes back to death panels.
Yeah, no way around it 🤷
Adding to Matt’s answer about Republicans and healthcare, the most disappointing thing about the traditional Republican Party is that they said they were for market based solutions but never really pushed for these solutions nationwide except as a counter to Democratic legislations like Obamacare. Some of the solutions that I would like to see are -
1. Decoupling healthcare insurance from employers by getting rid of the preferential tax treatment of employer provided insurance. Unions are the main villains here.
2. Making it easy to import drugs from other countries where it’s cheaper. I'm not a fan of the government negotiating drug prices. If rent control is bad, so is this kind of policy.
3. Reform in medical education. Allowing students to start an integrated medical degree program right after high school, which is the case in most countries.
4. Portability of healthcare insurance across states, like cell phone numbers. You should be able to get treatment from any state where it’s cheaper in exchange for lower co-pay.
5. Allow a family HSA account regardless of other forms of insurance where people can set aside some money for emergencies. It can be funded by post tax but qualified withdrawals can be tax exempt. This is one of my pet peeves about the current system. Throughout our lives, we pay insurance premiums directly or indirectly to various insurance providers but there’s no long term credit for being in good health or for paying those premiums. The current HSA is very limited and usually tied to the employer. This takes care of the lifecycle management of healthcare insurance. Obviously, single payer is also a solution for this but I’ve grown very skeptical that the US federal government is capable of doing it well.
I'd add on to that making it easier for doctors from other countries to qualify in the United States. The doctors' guilds strangle the supply of qualified physicians just to keep wages high.
Never underestimate the importance of good moderators and reasonable moderating rules to generate a positive comments section. It also helps when the comments section is relatively small.
It's a form of governance and civil society.