cmh89

Canadian health care is relatively inexpensive though. Canadians spent $8,563 Canadian Dollars per capita on health care in 2022, which is currently equivalent to $6,320 US dollars per capita.

Americans spent $12,914 American dollars per capita in 2021 for health care costs. We pay over double per capita what Canadians pay.

Canada could increase the quality of the health care system by buying more services and paying more for services to increase quality.

https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends-20... https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta...

>Americans seem willing to pay more to private business and thus actually part with more of their money than they otherwise would, as long as on paper they're not giving the money to 'the government' see i.e. healthcare.

Americans reject public healthcare because your average American has incredibly narrow view of the world, and many people buy lies about public health care in other places.

They simply buy the lie that propagandist are paid to spread that public health care includes 'death panels' or insanely long ER waits, or that you can't pick your doctor (can you now?).

The larger problem is that the government deals with things that are sufficiently complicated that they require dedicated time to understanding them and Americans aren't willing to do that on a scale that impacts government policy.

>I think having property standards is an important part of ensuring that people keep up their properties and by extension, maintain (and ideally beautify) their neighbourhoods.

Most places I've seen that have strict property standards end up being ugly swaths of green lawn with absolutely nothing pretty growing.

>Counterpoint is that there is nothing wrong with a round number and it is perfectly compatible with setting appropriate resource targets for corporate goals.

Yes, in this case the corporate goal is to fire 500 people as a sacrifice to the finance gods.

If the goal was 'refocus strategy', you'd probably want to actually assess your business and determine who is no longer necessary, and you would doubtfully end up at a nice round number

>Nearly everything that's wrong with the current economy and welfare of your average man in the US can be traced in some way to the stock market

Just the basic fact that an economy that is good for workers, where they are more in demand and make more money, is bad for their retirement because the stock market goes down, is really all you need to know to understand why the stock market is a plague.

>Sure, cops are not allowed to kill black people

But they de facto are in many cases. Cops can generally kill at will and without real justification and not face consequences. It's only in rare cases when public outcry is enough, like in the slaying of George Floyd, where prosecutors will even attempt to hold cops accountable.

There is really no reason there needs to be flights between the major cities in the north east. It's wild that its not easy and quick to get between major cities.

New York City and Boston are roughly 200 miles apart and it takes four hours by car and four hours by transit. Tokyo and Osaka are 365 miles apart by car and an seven hour drive, but you can get between the two cities in three hours by using transit.

>I guess there is some sort of indirect benefit to be had after such a donation, like an entry pass for a child, an entry pass for a PhD, or something of that vein?

You could get that for a million probably. He donated it because he's a vain billionaire who wants the world to remember him despite not achieving anything memorable.

>Portland might not have a lot of gang violence

Portland has a ton of gang violence.

>but not violent isn't how I would describe the city.

It depends on where you are in the city. I live in Portland and I don't think I've someone get attacked in the entire time I've lived here. But I also live in an area that is less popular with the mentally ill and drug addicted

The person you replied to said

"A person with a few full magazines and a semiauto rifle in a crowded place, and not much concern about surviving, can kill dozens of people in a couple minutes before there's any chance of someone else with a gun being able to stop them. I'm not aware of someone doing this with a knife.

The Canadian incident took place over days and 13 different locations. The other two incidents don't say how long they took but it just takes way longer to kill people with a knife than a gun.

>Poor is fine. It's a hard life, but it's a state of being. Even being artsy and a little crazy; that's great. The rest of it though...? Why romanticize this? It's bad. We shouldn't romanticize bad. Learn your lessons, but let's want something better.

The OC has either survivor ship bias or a bad memory. I've never lived in SF but I've lived in Portland and work adjacent to mental health professionals and the stories that they have of people being victimized in the camps and shanty towns are tragic.

For everyone who learned to 'not get stabbed' (whatever that means), there are people who DO get stabbed, or sexually assaulted, or robbed of the little money they had.

I'm not looking at it from a 'legalistic' perspective. I was elaborating for you because you seemed confused or uncertain about what dangerous speech was.

>I don't know if I'd call a currency "stable" when it's lost 80% of it's own value since being introduced and can have new liquidity created with little due process.

Something that depreciates can still be stable. The US dollar loses value at a relatively predictable rate. We can see what an unstable currency looks like right now by looking at Argentina, where the peso has lost 47% of its value in a year.

BitCoin is more like the peso than the dollar, hence why its called unstable.

> All currency is an illusion, it's just about which illusion makes you more comfortable.

Currency isn't an illusion, it's a social construct, and its a deeply embedded social construct.

Yes, if you go back and take a gander at US history, you'll learn that there is a long history of restricting speech that is likely to cause another person harm.

Is that something you are unaware of?

I think you're missing the point. I understand that you value that. There is no question of that.

The majority of people however don't value it or actively desire it because no wants to live in a pigsty. There is a reason apps like Truth Social don't take off, and that 4chan never gained the mainstream popularity of other social sites.

There have been multiple reddit clones, multiple twitter clones, multiple social media clones all based on the false pretense that there is demand for a freeze peach social site, and they all fall flat. Mastodon is doing better than most and its gaining users because of Twitter catering to the alt-right and refusing to censor offensive or dangerous speech.

There isn't a huge amount of demand for 'censorship resistance' and 'free speech' in social networks.

People want enjoyable communities far more than they want the 'freedom' to spam the n-word.

I agree with you mostly (and will give you an upvote). I think we've seen enough to understand that upvotes and downvotes are dolled out based on how well a comment agrees or disagrees with the voters preconceived notion of whatever the topic is.

I also question the concept of 'hiding' comments. Are my eyes so delicate that I can't see certain comments by default? It seems like just a feature that exists to bias subsequent viewers against comments.

It'd be really interesting to see a system where voters have both one upvote/downvote for the submission and the ability to upvote one comment and downvote one comment.

>No, it isn't nonsense. Neither are the signs at a mechanic's shop telling you they're not responsible for lost or damaged items.

I'm sure that included in the waiver you sign at the mechanics shop, its included that they are not responsible for lost or damaged items. The extra sign is just to let you know.

The sign on the back of the truck is nonsense because it has no basis in reality. You can't just slap a sticker on your truck and say 'laws don't apply to me'

>"The number of carjackings - defined as auto theft or attempted theft by force or threat - rose by 24% in seven cities: Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Memphis, Norfolk and San Francisco."

Cool. If your town has one carjacking, and the next it has two, thats a big increase. So again, I'll repeat, does San Francisco have a lot of carjackings?

>Nearly Half of San Franciscans Have Been Victims of Theft, New Poll Says

Yes, petty theft is rampant there.

>If we are shifting the conversation from "dangerous" to "violent",

Just to clarify, we were always talking about violent crimes. Carjacking and break-ins are violent crimes. Petty theft is not. The conversation is not "shifting", you are just applying the word dangerous to situations where it doesn't apply.

>My concern is similar to that expressed by huevosabio[5] based on his experience in Mexico: "Every crime that goes unprosecuted is an invitation for a repeat crime. This is as true in Juarez as it is in San Francisco."

That's irrelevant to our conversation.

Does San Francisco have a lot of carjackings, break-ins, and burglaries? I've never heard of San Francisco having frequent carjackings or break-ins, or even burglaries. It's mostly petty theft like smashing a car window or stealing a bike.

You're trying to use the amount of petty theft, which does suck, to pretend that San Francisco is a dangerous city, which its not.

If you look at just violent crimes, San Francisco isn't in the conversation.

The definition of danger is

'able or likely to cause harm or injury.'

From Google/Oxford.

I said

"San Francisco isn't anywhere close to *most dangerous city* in the United States."

You conflating property crime with violent crime is disingenuous at best on your part.

Your comparing a safe big city to the safest big city. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I didn't say SF was the safest city in the country.

>For the most part, anywhere that Democrats have held TOTAL power for decades is a dump.

Red states are the poorest states in the country. They have more murders and other crime than blue states.

Just because you hide deep poverty and drug abuse behind gutted-out, falling down houses, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

There's something people like about having more options than Red Lobster or Olive Garden!

People on the coasts don't really think about midwest, which I can't blame them, there is nothing there.

Pretty much every midwestern city of any size is violent as fuck. STL, KC, Indy, Chicago, OKC, all are so much scarier than San Francisco.

San Francisco isn't anywhere close to most dangerous city in the United States. Do you have any data to support your argument that the 'catch and release' policy creates substantially more danger than traditional American judicial policies?

This is yet another low-quality opinion piece from this source. People live in cities because suburban and exurban commuter towns are bland. Conservatives have been predicting the death of the city for decades at this point

Are you under the impression that taxes and came after capitalism?

That's what they'd like to believe! Corporations didn't build the interstate network, provide stable economic conditions, or create a literate, educated workforce.

>The entitlement is off the charts.

People are just sick of corporations causing havoc in our lives.