What % of the US population would you think have to pay to get that "best" care?
Would a household making $250,000 have enough to pay for that best care? That would mean 2% [1] of US household. Other comment in the thread mentioned earning "6 figures" and not being able to pay.
A health system that is affordable to 2% of the population is definitely not working.
I recently spent around $6k in a new 14in MacBook Pro with 128gb unified ram and 4tb HD. To replace my old Linux running 2012 MacBook pro.
I searched throughly for something as close to that MBP hw conf but with Linux compatibility. There's just no hardware equivalent to what the Macbookpro, including the build quality.
So I de idea to go for the MBP and install vmware + Linux. It's an amazing piece of hardware.
I work as a contractor these days. I find the teams with top spec macbooks have terribly bloated code bases, because they don't notice. Pulling into the project with my laptop with 8gbs of ram instantly recognizes the bloat. I point out the things they are doing wrong, and they typically know, but haven't cared to fix the issues. They end up wasting a mountain of money in production and ironically become very cost sensitive about hours worked instead.
I would be more worried about everything else before Crypto... I would be worried about SSH, about blowfish (and all the dumped password databases) and TLS, and oh so many things.
You've had already several replies commenting in your attitude issues; but it seems you are still to young to see them. I really, really hope in my heart that you can still keep the way of life you are used to. Although, from what I've seen in the US and the world currently, it will be quite difficult.
It is a reality that us people from Xenials (myself), Millenials and Z have have lived our work lives in a generally confortable era. I myself ended my BSc in 2004, way after the dot-com bubble burst, and fortunately the 2008 crisis didn't hit me.
But, the advice you are calling "boomer coping" (or similar) has some experience in there, most likely from people that suffered the 2000 dot-com bubble burst. From the accounts I've read of older friends, there were people with plenty of experience and great CVs washing dishes at local restaurants.
Right now, the way things are moving in our field, with AI, outsourcing and everything else playing, it looks like the skillsets are getting cheaper. So, we are getting punched by reality and I believe it will only get worse.
> But, the advice you are calling "boomer coping" (or similar) has some experience in there, most likely from people that suffered the 2000 dot-com bubble burst. From the accounts I've read of older friends, there were people with plenty of experience and great CVs washing dishes at local restaurants.
Also the early 90s weren’t great: the Cold War ending meant that a lot of defense contractors laid off very specialized workers. For an example of that circa 1994:
I had read so many raves about that book, and heard the author got a Nobel prize for his ideas, so I started reading it.
I just could not digest it. I understood the words but I couldn't make whatever message he was trying to convey... it felt too "dense" for me. Maybe im just stupid, but I could not get past I think the first two chapters.
Since you’re giving an edgy take in a thread discussing the death of a respected author, I’ll be pedantic: you’re wrong about those people not reading a word of Smith or Keynes, since it’s impossible to avoid reading at least one of their common quotations if you have even a passing interest in the field.
I suffered through the book and I just think it is a rather boring writing style.
The poseur part is that it doesn't matter if you know what is in the book or not. That is actually the interesting part of the book to me but also why it is largely an exercise in futility.
I would assume someone who says it is their favorite book just has not read that many non-fiction books.
Don't worry, it doesn't matter, because at best a lot of claims in this books just cannot be replicated, and at worst the book is completely useless because it's based on shitty science - depends on your POV.
The problem is that it's an inelastic market. So sellers can basically charge WHATEVER they want, constrained only to the line where people will revolt. But that's a very high line in the US.
Health providing shouldn't be a for-profit endeavor. Certainly shouldn't be in the stock market and it absolutely shouldn't be comingled with "insurance"
> The problem is that it's an inelastic market. So sellers can basically charge WHATEVER they want, constrained only to the line where people will revolt.
What keeps me from bringing my business too the competition like I do in every other market? The main constraint I see right now is that there are very few, but large hospitals and my insurance only pays for me to go to even fewer of those. However, competition already works (if the patient makes an effort) for some planned procedures like CT scans where you can safe up to 80% in my own experience.
Definitely true. However, it's not intrinsic to healthcare. We made it that way. You can go to https://surgerycenterok.com/ and see all-inclusive prices for surgeries right now. Some people fly there for procedures. They have higher success rates than competitors, surgeons take more money home and the procedures cost less. It's possible.
Maybe they're referring to the way the system is set up. You're probably not going to shop around for the lowest cost heart surgeon unless you have no insurance. Will they even say how much they charge? Couple that with emergencies. I think the only hope for America is a movement to stop a lot of this stuff before they become issues. Early diagnosis of cancer, national movement to unfat America (whatever that mean), people feeling more responsible for their own health inasmuch as they can.
Availability of prices is definitely an issue. Many, many things aren't emergencies though and arguably many of the expensive ones aren't (cancer treatment, many great procedures once stabilized). My wife used to work on healthcare and has helped friends and family shop around for cancer treatment and heart surgery. However, due to the lack of price transparency this was limited to shopping for quality. We could totally change that though. See the surgery center of Oklahoma website I've linked in several comments
Getting approval to build a new hospital seems to require regulatory stuff and how do you get the staff if there's a cap on how many doctors can be trained a year?
Would a household making $250,000 have enough to pay for that best care? That would mean 2% [1] of US household. Other comment in the thread mentioned earning "6 figures" and not being able to pay.
A health system that is affordable to 2% of the population is definitely not working.
[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/americans-making-more-than...
reply