refurb

That seems like an impossible task in today’s world of layoffs and needing to jump jobs to get pay raises.

You could live where you work and suddenly your next job is a 30 min drive away.

How could you ensure that enough companies existing within a 10 mile radius to provided varied employment to all the residents?

Causing death in the course of administering treatment is not illegal.

For someone in severe pain, it’s completely legal to offering increasing doses of morphine to treat pain even if it results in death.

> Now do maternal death rate

Sure!

https://archive.is/rMVJ0

Turns out the CDC changed the way it counts maternal deaths, while other countries didn't, so you're comparing different measures.

The old US measure was deaths that occurred during birth or shortly thereafter, now it's within six months and they added a check box only asking if the woman had been pregnant in the last year.

Not "this woman died because of poor maternal care", but rather "this woman who died had been pregnant in the last year".

This change immediately doubled the number. The data was wildly overestimating maternal deaths and in fact the CDC and many states are revising data collection to improve the number.

> The increase in healthcare costs is more a function of an aging population, rather than people (mis)using ambulances too much.

Sure, but increasing healthcare costs are due to a number of factors like new technology adoption, not just an aging population.

So while I would agree that no one is going bankrupt from overuse of ambulances, it all adds up.

> I am not obligated to make your argument for you

Are you just uncomfortable with debate? How do you debate the merits of the argument without defining the terms being used?

Nope. I've not only lived in both countries, I work in healthcare so I'm very close to who gets access to what.

And it's not "the tiniest sliver of people", we're talking about disease like cancer. Check out the CAR-T rates in the US vs. Canada, the difference is stark. And CAR-T is standard of care in some types of lymphoma.

Hell, ask parents with autistic kids what kind of early intervention is available to them in Canada. I had a coworker who moved to the US so he'd have much better access for his kid at a time when it had a big impact.

Look at access to the cystic fibrosis therapy that effectively cures it (e.g. Orkambi). It was paid for by insurance (and Medicaid!) from the day it was launched and avaiable to everyone it could help. In Canada some provinces just started paying for it, but only kids, adults are shit outta luck.

And I don't know the details of your FAANG insurance, but my US insurance (typical corporate insurance) pays for all these new technologies.

Canada is great if you have a routine issue. If you need something specialized you're going to be treated with therapies that are a decade or more old. Hell, even the CBC wrote a whole story about 2 friends with breast cancer and the differences in treatment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/a-tale-of-2-...

"Then I found out that this other country — which I thought had a healthcare system that was so superior to the U.S. — doesn't test for the tumour marker that saved my life, and doesn't cover this drug that is responsible for pushing my cancer into remission after traditional chemotherapy failed to do that."

US care is highly aligned with international guidelines. Saying "it's junk volume" just tells me you're not that close to the data.

Life expectancy doesn't measure quality of healthcare, there are far too many confounding variables like genetics, diet, accidental deaths, etc. No serious study of healthcare quality relies on it.

Look at 5-year cancer survival rates. The US is better (significantly better) in many of them than other countries. A big part of that is access to the latest technology.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2...

What do you consider financial ruin? Last time I checked most of those countries are desperately trying to contain their healthcare spending.

Name me a large corporation who "trusts" their employees. I'd pretty much be forced into unemployment if trust was a requirement.

We're not talking about fiber, we are talking about cellphone coverage. As I said, no company will put a tower up in a remote area.

It has nothing to do with competition. You could have as many competitors as possible and no one is going to put a cell tower up in a remote location.

I did the same. Nothing nefarious on my work laptop, but I used it for websurfing (avoiding questionable sites), booking trips, etc.

Then I realized how stupid that was even though my employer was fine with and was never strict with how a work laptop is used.

I realized not only did I not want my work to know what I'm doing on my personal time, the risk of cross-contamination and being accused of stealing confidential documents or a personal text making it look like I'm doing something wrong is too high.

I bought my own cell phone and laptop and now never use my work equipment for anything but work. Not worth the risk.

You’re ignoring the fact that provinces can’t fund technology that the federal government hasn’t reviewed and negotiated a price for.

So yes there may be differences between provinces in terms of when they fund what restrictions are put on it, the overall trend across Canada is pretty consistent.

And as I said Canadians don’t get the same care as Americans so concluding the higher cost is entirely higher prices for the same thing is false.

Strawman. Ask any ER about “frequent flyers” who use ambulances as taxis

Even the Soviets had a label for people who are a drain on society. You can’t run a country pretending everyone makes good choices.

He’s a comedian that some people take too seriously.

You’re not supposed to shape your political views from entertainment.

The Democratic Party spans from slightly right to ragging left that even European leftists look at with confusion.

Canadians don’t get the same care as Americans.

McKinsey did a nice analysis of what is driving US healthcare costs. It compares category spending to OECD then compared price and volume.

Turns out the US pays a bit more for drugs (relative to total spend), a little more for inpatient care and a TON more for outpatient care but half of the increase is volume, not price.

As someone who works in healthcare globally, the difference in US care is stark. Americans get much early and more access to new technology than other countries.

If your lymphoma has returned and you have a 20% of living more than a few years the best care is CAR-T with cure rates close to 60%.

Check out CAR-T rates in the US versus Europe, it’s almost 3x. The US started using it in 2014 and Singapore just started paying for last year (11 years later). Even in Europe adopt only ramped up in the last 5 years.

So yes prices are higher, but a big part is more aggressive care with more expensive treatment.

Canada doesn’t pay for ambulances unless it’s truly an emergency. Think you’re having a heart attack but you’re not? Time to pony up hundreds of dollars

This is an important point that many people miss.

Describing a benefit (or cost) over a population doesn’t directly translate to decision making at the individual level.

We can say that you should alway take a bet that has an 80% probability of a 10x payout, because the outcome is positive, it wouldn’t be smart to bet your entire network as many outcomes are negative.

Of course it cheapens it.

Using your example, if some ethnic group changed how they dressed it would be genocide.

That cheapens the word. Change in dress is not as severe an outcome as buried in a ditch with a bullet in your head.

That says more about the people you were with than America.

I see plenty of 11 year olds in the US without any parental supervision while in public.

I mean kids get jobs at 12?

So genocide ranges from “murder” to “discrimination, maybe”?

The only thing this does is cheapen the word. In the past genocide was something serious. But now it includes activities that are simply upsetting.

So the “-cide” root of the word which means “kill” no longer means that?

I’ve lived in 2 out of 3 of those countries and I can assure you people get away with fraud and corruption all the time.

If you’re well connected (or making the right people rich) they are happy to overlook it. But if you bite off too much and they need a head to roll they will find one (usually someone lower level).

I mean look at the number of military leader simply dismissed in China for massive corruption. They get a fat pension and go away quietly and the small guy pays with his life.

Not sure I’d be expounding the greatness of that system.

While AI may seem like it’s sucking up all investment, the retail trade industry was 2x the entire IT industry investment according to the BEA

I wouldn’t call issuance of new stock rare, it’s a major funding mechanism.

Not to mention a company with thin margins is going to have a hell of a time raising money through debt.

Absolutely, and plenty of companies have made that mistake.

But the point is locking up money in a 3% margin business doesn’t impress investors.

So you either need to improve the margin with lower costs or higher price (or both). Or bail from the market entirely and put your money in something that makes more money.

Many reasons:

- Investors bail - You run out of cash

Making a thin 3% profit that can go negative when the wind blows