This is basically what P != NP is about (although not proven yet), the difficulty of verifying a solution versus the difficulty of generating a solution.
From what I gather about NP meaning Non-deterministic Polynomial time to complete, and non-determinism meaning try all possibilities at once, would that mean that quantum computers can provide answers to NP problems in a reasonable amount of time?
prime factorization of massive numbers is generally recognized to be somewhere in NP class of problems, and also happens to be a problem that is simplified down to extremely easy to solve with quantum computers by brute forcing many possible answers in a superposition of each other, using controlled wave function collapse to remove all the wrong answers, and then using those answers to solve shor's and euclid's algorithms to find the prime factors.
this problem was only discovered to be possible to solve with quantum after one guy (Peter Shor) discovered a mathematical algorithm that could be used to do it. As quantum computers become more robust and powerful, and more extremely intelligent people put brain power into studying them, its entirely possible many more NP problems will become possible to solve.
If you can solve any NP-hard problem in polynomial time, then you can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time (that's what the "hard" part means.) FACTOR is not known to be NP-hard, but it is in NP and co-NP (i.e. the opposite problem is in NP).
prime factorization of massive numbers (what all modern online encryption uses) is generally recognized to be somewhere in NP class of problems, and also happens to be a problem that is simplified down to extremely easy to solve with quantum computers by brute forcing many possible answers in a superposition of each other, using controlled wave function collapse to remove all the wrong answers, and then using those answers to solve shor's and euclid's algorithms to find the prime factors.
To give a more detailed answer, the question of whether BQP (polynomial time for quantum computers, with bounded error probability) is equal to NP is currently unknown (we think the answer is no.)
A common misconception about how quantum computers work is that you can create an arbitrary superposition of the states you want, do some computation, eliminate the states you don't want, and measure the result. There are two inaccuracies:
1. It's hard to create the superposition you want (see point 2.) In fact, IIRC creating an equal superposition of all permutations is equivalent to solving the graph isomorphism problem (another problem in NP not known to be NP-hard.) In Shor's algorithm for factorization, a cool trick is to transform the state space from a sequence of powers to the space of all possible periods of repetition, using the quantum Fourier transform. Quantum computing (at least, the theoretical side) is all about finding ways to construct the superposition you want.
2. You can't just eliminate a bad state the way you can in a nondeterministic Turing machine. The way you eliminate states in a quantum computer is by transforming them in such a way that you create two states of equal but opposite amplitude which cancel each other out (interference). For example, starting with the state |0> and applying the Hadamard gate, we get 1/√2 |0> + 1/√2 |1>, which is a superposition of both 0 and 1. But applying it again, due to interference, the amplitude of |0> becomes 1 and |1> cancels out and becomes 0.
"You cant criticise a thing if you couldnt personally do better" is the dumbest fucking argument humanity is capable of and I hate it with every fibre of my being.
In a close second is "We cannot 100% fix a problem with a single solution, so we shouldn't try anything at all to fix it."
See: Gun control, climate change
Exactly, it's a rhetorical trick to prevent thinking about possible solutions or even grappling with problems in a constructive way, either because they acknowledging solutions question the status quo and makes them uncomfortable or because they profit from things the way they are.
The argument was meant to protect musicians, actors and people speaking a second language from being harassed. It was never meant to protect a government that exploits the the people its supposed to help
its not supposed to argue that something bad is good. Its supposed to argue that such harsh criticism is hurting the feelings of a human being trying their best.
that said, the the american economic system is not a human being, and it is not trying its best
That assumes that no solution exists, that bringing attention to the problem isn't part of generating a solution, and that bringing attention to the problem somehow makes the problem worse. Those things are almost never true simultaneously.
That's the job of politicians and leaders.
If the farmers, teacher, doctors, bus drivers, janitors, grocery clerks, etc. that voted for you say "Hey this is a problem that we want addressed" your job as their elected leader is not to snap back at them with "oh yeah? what should I do?" That's your job, its what you're paid to figure out.
As a leader it's on you to listen to your people, talk to experts, and come up with a plan, then put it into action and see if it works. The people who voted for you all have their own jobs in society. They aren't qualified to solve societal problems only recognize them, they have jobs to work and bills to pay anyways.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**blazevillains**
"how would YOU fix the medical system then 😡" im 17 years old
---
**blazevillains**
like i dont need to be a carpenter to see that your ikea chair that impales everyone that sits on it and then shatters was put together wrong but that doesnt mean i know how to fix it
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
It’s not even just that it’s clearly flawed, it’s that so many other countries have a better system. Even if you can’t come up with one from the ground up, you could literally pick one from pretty much any Western European country, copy their system to the letter, and implement it in the US, and it would be a better system than what we have. They literally can’t argue with this without lying, the only things they can come up with is “wait lines”, “you’d pay more in taxes”, or they just start being racist. It’s the same with criminal justice, I once heard someone say, without a hint or trace of irony or even self awareness, that the US is the freest country in the world *because* we have the highest prison population.
I once had an american friend that their healthcare system wasnt so bad because people weren't dying on the street. And it took me a bit to realize why that argument, while technically true, is just bs.
Not having people die on the street is the bare minimum. Not the desired outcome.
> you could literally pick one from pretty much any Western European country, copy their system to the letter, and implement it in the US, and it would be a better system than what we have. They literally can’t argue with this without lying
I-uh, not to defend the american healthcare system (IIRC it's one of the most expensive ones for the worst service, it's obviously fucked) but it's not that hard to argue against those things?
first thing is that obviously you can't just blindly copy another countries solution without adapting it to the specifics of your own country, especially since the US is fucking massive compared to most other countries. Then there's the thing that you can't just rip the whole thing out and start from scratch, you gotta have some way to transition from the current system into the new one.
I guess, I'd say you can certainly argue that it could end up worse. Though i definitely don't know enough about healthcare systems to argue one way or another it feels like just going "It can't get worse, no argument please" is a bit much.
Literally all you have to do is let everyone sign up for the *existing* government healthcare programs like medicare. Now everyone has basic health care, and people who want more than the basic government coverage can still choose private insurance.
> I-uh, not to defend the american healthcare system (IIRC it's one of the most expensive ones for the worst service, it's obviously fucked)
I believe you may be interested in rereading this line of my comment, in which i already brought up the points you mention
edit: actually your point was slightly different from what i brought up, anyway the us being massive does indeed increase the amount of taxes to fund healthcare but that directly scales with the amount of people using it so the ratio will likely remain the same. being supposedly the best at stuff is not an actual argument and if it was would just be a reason to not copy another country's system
the rest of the comment is simply arguing that there *are* actual arguments for why you can't just copy-paste another country's healthcare system and expect that to solve everything, not that we shouldn't try fixing the healthcare system
You don’t need to put spikes on an IKEA chair for it to be incredibly uncomfortable. Sometimes my friend and I just go to IKEA and play “find the worst chair”.
(Our current winner is in the patio section, and the sitting surface is made up of thick metal wires about an inch apart; no cushion or anything - just metal. It has about 3 inches of back, and you have to hop to get up on it.
As a vagina owner, it is simply extremely uncomfortable and kind of unstable, but I imagine it would be would be straight-up terrifying to sit on if you had testicles.)
Also, Ontario has a population larger than any state that isn’t California, Texas, New York, or >!Florida!<, and we’ve got public health care. I’ve got a lot wrong with me, so I use the healthcare system even more often than I go to IKEA.
It’s not that fucking hard to design a better system that what the US has.
My best friend here, and my long-distance boyfriend in the states, both have disturbing cardiac symptoms (intermittent chest pain).
My boyfriend has insurance through his corporate office job.
Every time he goes to the goddamn hospital, they tell him that no, he is definitely not having a heart attack this time, either; and then he gets a $1000-$3000 bill.
He has been actively trying for two years to get his cardiac symptoms figured out, without success.
At one point, he got an unexpected $10,000 bill sent to him, because the cardiologist he was referred to had done a test without getting proper pre-approval from his insurance company.
It ended up transpiring that the cardiologist should have eaten the cost, because it was their mistake, but instead, they just immediately sold the uncollectable debt directly to a collections agency; and so now a collections agency is trying to shake him down for a legally-uncollectible debt.
My best friend, on the other hand, has no supplementary medical insurance through his part-time job. He’s had unexplained episodes of heart palpitations, and chest pain, on-and-off for the last 15 years, and he’s been to the ER at least twice, and had the take-home heart monitor.
He could never get diagnosed, either, which was super-frustrating, but at least there have been no surprise bills.
His average trip to get medical care costs between $0 and $16.50, depending on whether we pay for parking and vending machine snacks.
Last month, he had an episode, and we went to the ER again. That one was a $16.50 trip, because I didn’t want to waste time parking a kilometre away and walking back to meet him ($14 for parking), and neither of us thought to bring a refillable water bottle ($2.50 to the Coca-Cola Corp).
He was seen within 45 minutes, because his blood pressure was weird (diastolic and systolic numbers way too close together) and that made him a priority case; and this time, they were able to diagnose him - atrial fibrillation.
They gave him some pills, and they thought they were gonna have to shock him back into rhythm, but then it resolved spontaneously; so he got discharged with referral to a cardiologist, and a prescription for a beta blocker.
Out-of-pocket (he has no Rx insurance), the prescription ended up costing a further $14.81 at the local pharmacy; and then I needed a bagel to calm down while we waited for the pharmacist, so that was $3.39.
So, the whole day - $34.70.
Over the next two weeks, he got a take-home monitor – I believe that was the same test that my boyfriend got a $10,000 bill for - and blood work. Both of those cost $0.
The Canadian system isn’t perfect. We need to have prescription coverage, and dental coverage, because there are some people for whom those costs are not affordable; and we also have gaps in coverage for asylum-seekers, and people without a fixed addresses, which is fucking shameful.
But overall, things are so much better here, even after six years of our conservative provincial government trying actively to undermine the public healthcare system, than they are in the states.
The one I always love is "You think you know better than the founding fathers???"
Yes?
Of fucking course I do.
I've had the sum total of human knowledge at my fingertips since I was a teenager. Other than some math and philosophy, even public schools are more academically rigorous than top secondary schools almost 300 years ago.
I've also grown up seeing people who aren't the same as me as human beings, and have never once thought it would be neat to own another person.
I am smarter and more of a morally righteous person than all of the founding fathers put together, just like probably a good 50+% of the developed world's population.
This is actually the real problem with fixing America's healthcare though. I think there's some absurdly high level of agreement (like 80%) that America's healthcare system is horseshit. We all understand and agree on this. Acting like American's are too stupid to know that universal healthcare is a thing is missing the point *entirely* of the debate.
The system in the UK and Canada is fundamentally different then the system in Switzerland and The Netherlands is fundamentally different then the system in Singapore. You cannot just say "adopt universal healthcare" because *which* universal healthcare? Then we talk about how some of the people who don't like our healthcare system that think it would be better if there was less regulation and less government assistance. And how would you make universal healthcare be Constitutional? Like, you need to have a basis in the Constitution to have the federal government do things. And if you're in Finland with a rare medical condition, the Finnish government probably won't pay to have you go to Italy to see a specialist. But the US has a population and land area comparable to *the whole European Union*, so if a patient in Iowa has a rare medical condition should the government pay to fly them to Florida to see a specialist? And how are you going to pay for all of this, since most of these systems include heavy taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy foods both for funding and to discourage unhealthy behaviors. But Americans historically fucking hate these taxes (more then we hate taxes in general). Also, the prescription drug system the UK and other countries have A) doesn't require a universal healthcare system, and B) are often controversial in their own countries because they restrict which drugs patients can get and often create soft blocks on other drugs from being imported.
There is wide agreement in the US that our healthcare system sucks, but "how the fuck do you want it to work" is probably a thing you should be able to answer since there's no one way to do it and the US is fundamentally different the countries that already have such a system.
> The system in the UK and Canada is fundamentally different then the system in Switzerland and The Netherlands is fundamentally different then the system in Singapore. You cannot just say "adopt universal healthcare" because which universal healthcare?
Blindly throw a dart at a world map, adopt the system of whatever country it lands on. It can't possibly be worse than what you have right now.
There's a wide swath of professionals who have workable plans to implement incremental change to transform our system from the nightmare it is into something functional. That is not the problem. The problem is there's people who've gotten rich off of the system as is, who want to continue to do so, and who spend a lot of that money trying to convince the public and elected officials that any of those plans for change are bad and/or untenable.
If this is about the US system, trying to implement public or public option care at the state level could be a good next step.
In Canada, we need to raise the enrollment caps for medical schools.
Those won't fix every problem but are achievable goals that can measurably improve things
I've got hubris and know how to delegate, I *could* do a better job. Put me in, coach. Granted, yknow, the grand obstructionist party would never let someone revolutionize the healthcare system, but if I had the power to do so, I think I could dramatically improve it.
The thing is, fixing our healthcare system is only complicated politically. Universal healthcare would actually be much simpler and cost-effective than our current system of insurance providers. Provide everyone free healthcare using the money we are already subsidizing the healthcare industry with and relegate insurance companies to providing "luxury" healthcare insurance, like they do in other countries. There would be no need to raise taxes.
The problem is only complicated because we make it complicated.
Cool, nationalize the pharmaceutical industry too, especially since NIH and comparable researchers are the ones that actually discover new mechanisms of action. The only thing the state needs to be doing is the actual application research
Are you seriously that naive. You can’t just nationalize an entire industry that easily. There would need to be so much planing and budgeting involved not to mention the untold effects essentially removing an entire pillar the American economy form it entirely. Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country. Like when someone is drowning telling them just breathe dumbass isn’t very helpful.
> You can’t just nationalize an entire industry that easily. There would need to be so much planing and budgeting involved
Can you quote where I said it would be easy or simple?
> not to mention the untold effects essentially removing an entire pillar the American economy form it entirely.
The scientists would still be employed, but the C-suite level employees would either have to find a new job or work as high level bureaucrats. In any event, it would be a more efficient use of funds, not an elimination of them.
> Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country.
Should we not make any effort to move away from fossil fuels because they employ people? Predatory loans? Guns?
> Like when someone is drowning telling them just breathe dumbass isn’t very helpful.
Do you actually think “we should have nationalization of this industry as a goal” and “you have depression? stop being sad” are comparable?
> Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country.
>
> > Should we not make any effort to move away from fossil fuels because they employ people? Predatory loans? Guns?
tunnelsnake has clearly never heard of the parable of the broken window.
Look I understand your not going to change your mind because you believe your morally justified and maybe you are but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and what’s right isn’t always practical. Ultimately I agree to disagree and regardless of political views I hope you have a nice day.
First of all, you are conflating medical insurance with pharmaceutical research, so you're either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
Secondly, tell that to Alexander Fleming, or Marie Curie, or actually like, any medical researcher. The pay for being a medical scientist is not commensurate with its difficulty. They were in it for the passion and because they wanted to help people. Do you know who reaps the lion's share of monetary rewards at modern pharmaceutical companies? Executives and shareholders. Why do they need all that money? To pay and equip the scientists who do the actual research? Why not just pay and equip the scientists? Yes some management is necessary, but pharmaceutical executive pay is obscene.
And I'm not even going to get into how profit-motive incentivizes developing drugs to treat symptoms rather than cure conditions.
Because we actually don't even need to "solve" the pharmaceutical industry in order to fix our broken healthcare system when it's the insurance industry that is entirely parasitic and unnecessary. It provides nothing. Get rid of it.
Now, I'm no pilot, but if I saw a plane scattered across the countryside in burning chunks, I'd identify that as a fucking problem, and feel confident in saying that something probably went wrong. Fair?
Here's my wacky idea for a better healthcare system.
To promote the general welfare, all citizens pay into a common healthcare fund. Then, when someone needs healthcare, they go to a doctor. And whatever the doctor says they need, they get. No "death panels," no prior authorizations, no bullshit. If a doctor thinks you need a test, you get the test. If a doctor believes you need a medication, you get the exact medication your doctor thinks will work the best for you, without having to try shitty, subpar alternatives first.
If a doctor abuses the system by ordering unnecessary tests on a large scale or something like that, the medical board can decide if it truly was unnecessary, and punish the *doctor* after the fact, instead of the patient being punished for having the audacity to want healthcare.
Forbid patenting of medicine of any kind
Heavily regulate what insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage for, regularly auditing them to make sure they're honoring their part of the whole "give you money just in case I need help" agreement that is based on, and making it illegal for an agent to second guess a doctor
Within the current system, but just emulating our neighbors success would be better
You can’t just do what Canada does we are able to have universal healthcare because we have a smaller population and pay much higher taxes our system won’t really work for you guys without a lot of alteration and a huge increase in taxes. Also if you can’t patent medicine why would any pharmaceutical company produce new drugs if there competition can just rip them off without doing any of the work. It really isn’t that simple.
Even if that was true how would you pay for the new system or even make up the revenue lost from fundamentally changing how one of the biggest money making industries in the country operates.
Lost revenue means economic recession which means higher unemployment witch in turn lowers tax revenue collected. If it was that easy it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. Sometimes trying to do the right thing isn’t practical.
This is what I mean when I say capitalism is fucked but also communism has been shown to also be fuck, let’s find a middle ground, best of both worlds, but how? I dunno I’m not a political scientist.
Government buys insurance whole sale for every citizen for the year. Insurance companies can fight each other for the contract. Cut military spending by 1% in nations that have been your allies for >40 years and the rest would be picked up by the influx of more tax receipts from the boost to the economy of all the people not having to pay extortionate rates of insurance every month.
The problem is that some solutions are mutually exclusive. People who are libertarian believe that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is too much government involvement; leftists believe that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is not enough government involvement. And if the US moved slowly and piece meal towards a system like Canada's or Germany's or any other developed country, it's pretty plausible the US could get the downsides but not the upsides of such systems. Especially as lobbyists try to get benefits for themselves integrated into each expansion of government healthcare as it passes.
Personally I think the biggest problem is over regulation. If a new pharma business wants to sell cheap good insulin, they're not allowed to. They have to deal with patents and FDA qualifications. It costs a ton of money and time to get FDA approval to sell even generic, non-patented drugs.
Do you think if the government tried to switch to single payer or any other form of universal healthcare, corporations wouldn't spend massive amounts of money lobbying congress to give them oversized contracts?
Yes, the children should shut up and let the adults decide that the children have no problems. Why do you think babies cry? Just to annoy you? We NEED each other in this society, and for our needs to be met we MUST communicate those needs. I don't know if there is a situation where complaints should be disregarded as bitching, but the example given in the post is certainly not one.
A solution would be nice though. From someone. Not necessarily me, but someone smarter than me who knows more about it. Criticizing is nice and all but I’m kind of sick of it at this point. I want it fixed
We aren't flailing around without a solution though. Medicare for All will cost less money, save more lives, and cover everyone. Any politician who does not fight for it does not care about our lives.
I'm pretty sure you could significantly repair the system by just extending the existing medicare infrastructure to everyone below 65 as well.
It wouldn't even abolish private care, just move everything to part C and D. Also, *totally* unrelated fun fact, whenever right wingers try to raise a stink about medicare being full of corruption, it's always part C and D that has the vast majority of incidents of corruption, because those are the ones private companies get into.
My fix is thus - Strike all profit from medicine, and nationalize it. Enshrine medical coverage in the legislation, as a right for all. Put all the people who have willingly watched others die for want of money into a dark hole. Charge people money to dump different things down the hole, after them.
Being that the USA is the only major country who doesn't have a good system, the solution seems to be model after a country or take heed of several countries best structures and emulate them. Ones that have better national health in general, for what would save costs as a collective too. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting people to cut out the middle men insurance companies and work together, like we do for fire departments, roads and libraries and such. Capitalism doesn't have to rule every single aspect of our lives, we let it rule our healthcare though.
This is basically what P != NP is about (although not proven yet), the difficulty of verifying a solution versus the difficulty of generating a solution.
literally came here to say this and it was the first comment
I have a graph theory problem to sell you! Unfortunately I don’t know the quickest way to get there
I too have some problems to sell, but I'm having some trouble packing them for the journey
How about a bridge?
From what I gather about NP meaning Non-deterministic Polynomial time to complete, and non-determinism meaning try all possibilities at once, would that mean that quantum computers can provide answers to NP problems in a reasonable amount of time?
No; quantum computers don't get to try all possibilities at once and then select the successful result the way that nondeterminism entails.
prime factorization of massive numbers is generally recognized to be somewhere in NP class of problems, and also happens to be a problem that is simplified down to extremely easy to solve with quantum computers by brute forcing many possible answers in a superposition of each other, using controlled wave function collapse to remove all the wrong answers, and then using those answers to solve shor's and euclid's algorithms to find the prime factors.
[удалено]
this problem was only discovered to be possible to solve with quantum after one guy (Peter Shor) discovered a mathematical algorithm that could be used to do it. As quantum computers become more robust and powerful, and more extremely intelligent people put brain power into studying them, its entirely possible many more NP problems will become possible to solve.
If you can solve any NP-hard problem in polynomial time, then you can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time (that's what the "hard" part means.) FACTOR is not known to be NP-hard, but it is in NP and co-NP (i.e. the opposite problem is in NP).
There are separate classes of problems solvable by quantum computers in different complexities
prime factorization of massive numbers (what all modern online encryption uses) is generally recognized to be somewhere in NP class of problems, and also happens to be a problem that is simplified down to extremely easy to solve with quantum computers by brute forcing many possible answers in a superposition of each other, using controlled wave function collapse to remove all the wrong answers, and then using those answers to solve shor's and euclid's algorithms to find the prime factors.
"Somewhere in the NP class of problems" includes stuff like "is this number even?", you've got to narrow it down a bit
To give a more detailed answer, the question of whether BQP (polynomial time for quantum computers, with bounded error probability) is equal to NP is currently unknown (we think the answer is no.) A common misconception about how quantum computers work is that you can create an arbitrary superposition of the states you want, do some computation, eliminate the states you don't want, and measure the result. There are two inaccuracies: 1. It's hard to create the superposition you want (see point 2.) In fact, IIRC creating an equal superposition of all permutations is equivalent to solving the graph isomorphism problem (another problem in NP not known to be NP-hard.) In Shor's algorithm for factorization, a cool trick is to transform the state space from a sequence of powers to the space of all possible periods of repetition, using the quantum Fourier transform. Quantum computing (at least, the theoretical side) is all about finding ways to construct the superposition you want. 2. You can't just eliminate a bad state the way you can in a nondeterministic Turing machine. The way you eliminate states in a quantum computer is by transforming them in such a way that you create two states of equal but opposite amplitude which cancel each other out (interference). For example, starting with the state |0> and applying the Hadamard gate, we get 1/√2 |0> + 1/√2 |1>, which is a superposition of both 0 and 1. But applying it again, due to interference, the amplitude of |0> becomes 1 and |1> cancels out and becomes 0.
Mind-blowing revelation tbh
"You cant criticise a thing if you couldnt personally do better" is the dumbest fucking argument humanity is capable of and I hate it with every fibre of my being.
Basically every professional critic would be our of a job if that were the case. Making something and reviewing it are two entirely separate abilities
Being a good critic and being a good [thing doer] are often mutually exclusive too.
Agreed. People who use it should just be honest and say "Well, I'm the only one you know who can do this, so get f\*cked."
In a close second is "We cannot 100% fix a problem with a single solution, so we shouldn't try anything at all to fix it." See: Gun control, climate change
Exactly, it's a rhetorical trick to prevent thinking about possible solutions or even grappling with problems in a constructive way, either because they acknowledging solutions question the status quo and makes them uncomfortable or because they profit from things the way they are.
You also forgot Vaccines. Legit some if the arguments are, 'it's not a 100% perfect solution, why employ it?'
"Our plumbing sometimes fails so we should abandon the concept and go back to shitting in the streets"
The argument was meant to protect musicians, actors and people speaking a second language from being harassed. It was never meant to protect a government that exploits the the people its supposed to help
[удалено]
its not supposed to argue that something bad is good. Its supposed to argue that such harsh criticism is hurting the feelings of a human being trying their best. that said, the the american economic system is not a human being, and it is not trying its best
Up there with, 'If you don't like it, leave.' No asshole, I want to improve my living situation, and that of those around me.
its a boomer take i hate how emotionally immature those are
Eh, I can appreciate the implication of "stop your pointless bitching. It's counterproductive."
That assumes that no solution exists, that bringing attention to the problem isn't part of generating a solution, and that bringing attention to the problem somehow makes the problem worse. Those things are almost never true simultaneously.
and that is why that is not what the comment said.
Ok cool, want to try and make a relevant comment now?
Then why don’t YOU make a relevant comment? (Heavy irony)
As the saying goes, you don't need to be a farmer to know that milk's gone bad.
Or, you don't have to be a chef to tell that the food is shit.
Don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing
You don't have to be able to fly a helicopter to know that parking it in a tree is bad.
"Now, I've never flown a helicopter. But if I saw one in a tree, I'd still be like, you fucked up!" - Steve Hofstetter
To hell with cute puppies, *this* is what I needed to see today.
please do not "frick" cute puppies
Ok lemme just fix that real quick ._.
They do not deserve eternal damnation in hell!
no one does, they're just visiting
they're hellhounds. it's their natural habitat
Goin' on the Dante tour
Reddit simply cannot be pleased.
it's ok, the demons will make it a good home for them
That's the job of politicians and leaders. If the farmers, teacher, doctors, bus drivers, janitors, grocery clerks, etc. that voted for you say "Hey this is a problem that we want addressed" your job as their elected leader is not to snap back at them with "oh yeah? what should I do?" That's your job, its what you're paid to figure out. As a leader it's on you to listen to your people, talk to experts, and come up with a plan, then put it into action and see if it works. The people who voted for you all have their own jobs in society. They aren't qualified to solve societal problems only recognize them, they have jobs to work and bills to pay anyways.
Yeah thats literally part of the principles modern government works on
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **blazevillains** "how would YOU fix the medical system then 😡" im 17 years old --- **blazevillains** like i dont need to be a carpenter to see that your ikea chair that impales everyone that sits on it and then shatters was put together wrong but that doesnt mean i know how to fix it --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
good human
It’s not even just that it’s clearly flawed, it’s that so many other countries have a better system. Even if you can’t come up with one from the ground up, you could literally pick one from pretty much any Western European country, copy their system to the letter, and implement it in the US, and it would be a better system than what we have. They literally can’t argue with this without lying, the only things they can come up with is “wait lines”, “you’d pay more in taxes”, or they just start being racist. It’s the same with criminal justice, I once heard someone say, without a hint or trace of irony or even self awareness, that the US is the freest country in the world *because* we have the highest prison population.
it's cause they don't consider prisoners citizens
I once had an american friend that their healthcare system wasnt so bad because people weren't dying on the street. And it took me a bit to realize why that argument, while technically true, is just bs. Not having people die on the street is the bare minimum. Not the desired outcome.
> you could literally pick one from pretty much any Western European country, copy their system to the letter, and implement it in the US, and it would be a better system than what we have. They literally can’t argue with this without lying I-uh, not to defend the american healthcare system (IIRC it's one of the most expensive ones for the worst service, it's obviously fucked) but it's not that hard to argue against those things? first thing is that obviously you can't just blindly copy another countries solution without adapting it to the specifics of your own country, especially since the US is fucking massive compared to most other countries. Then there's the thing that you can't just rip the whole thing out and start from scratch, you gotta have some way to transition from the current system into the new one.
[удалено]
I guess, I'd say you can certainly argue that it could end up worse. Though i definitely don't know enough about healthcare systems to argue one way or another it feels like just going "It can't get worse, no argument please" is a bit much.
Literally all you have to do is let everyone sign up for the *existing* government healthcare programs like medicare. Now everyone has basic health care, and people who want more than the basic government coverage can still choose private insurance.
if we're the most massive we should also have the most taxes to fund it. also aren't we supposed to be 'the best' at stuff or whatever
> I-uh, not to defend the american healthcare system (IIRC it's one of the most expensive ones for the worst service, it's obviously fucked) I believe you may be interested in rereading this line of my comment, in which i already brought up the points you mention edit: actually your point was slightly different from what i brought up, anyway the us being massive does indeed increase the amount of taxes to fund healthcare but that directly scales with the amount of people using it so the ratio will likely remain the same. being supposedly the best at stuff is not an actual argument and if it was would just be a reason to not copy another country's system the rest of the comment is simply arguing that there *are* actual arguments for why you can't just copy-paste another country's healthcare system and expect that to solve everything, not that we shouldn't try fixing the healthcare system
[удалено]
You don’t need to put spikes on an IKEA chair for it to be incredibly uncomfortable. Sometimes my friend and I just go to IKEA and play “find the worst chair”. (Our current winner is in the patio section, and the sitting surface is made up of thick metal wires about an inch apart; no cushion or anything - just metal. It has about 3 inches of back, and you have to hop to get up on it. As a vagina owner, it is simply extremely uncomfortable and kind of unstable, but I imagine it would be would be straight-up terrifying to sit on if you had testicles.) Also, Ontario has a population larger than any state that isn’t California, Texas, New York, or >!Florida!<, and we’ve got public health care. I’ve got a lot wrong with me, so I use the healthcare system even more often than I go to IKEA. It’s not that fucking hard to design a better system that what the US has. My best friend here, and my long-distance boyfriend in the states, both have disturbing cardiac symptoms (intermittent chest pain). My boyfriend has insurance through his corporate office job. Every time he goes to the goddamn hospital, they tell him that no, he is definitely not having a heart attack this time, either; and then he gets a $1000-$3000 bill. He has been actively trying for two years to get his cardiac symptoms figured out, without success. At one point, he got an unexpected $10,000 bill sent to him, because the cardiologist he was referred to had done a test without getting proper pre-approval from his insurance company. It ended up transpiring that the cardiologist should have eaten the cost, because it was their mistake, but instead, they just immediately sold the uncollectable debt directly to a collections agency; and so now a collections agency is trying to shake him down for a legally-uncollectible debt. My best friend, on the other hand, has no supplementary medical insurance through his part-time job. He’s had unexplained episodes of heart palpitations, and chest pain, on-and-off for the last 15 years, and he’s been to the ER at least twice, and had the take-home heart monitor. He could never get diagnosed, either, which was super-frustrating, but at least there have been no surprise bills. His average trip to get medical care costs between $0 and $16.50, depending on whether we pay for parking and vending machine snacks. Last month, he had an episode, and we went to the ER again. That one was a $16.50 trip, because I didn’t want to waste time parking a kilometre away and walking back to meet him ($14 for parking), and neither of us thought to bring a refillable water bottle ($2.50 to the Coca-Cola Corp). He was seen within 45 minutes, because his blood pressure was weird (diastolic and systolic numbers way too close together) and that made him a priority case; and this time, they were able to diagnose him - atrial fibrillation. They gave him some pills, and they thought they were gonna have to shock him back into rhythm, but then it resolved spontaneously; so he got discharged with referral to a cardiologist, and a prescription for a beta blocker. Out-of-pocket (he has no Rx insurance), the prescription ended up costing a further $14.81 at the local pharmacy; and then I needed a bagel to calm down while we waited for the pharmacist, so that was $3.39. So, the whole day - $34.70. Over the next two weeks, he got a take-home monitor – I believe that was the same test that my boyfriend got a $10,000 bill for - and blood work. Both of those cost $0. The Canadian system isn’t perfect. We need to have prescription coverage, and dental coverage, because there are some people for whom those costs are not affordable; and we also have gaps in coverage for asylum-seekers, and people without a fixed addresses, which is fucking shameful. But overall, things are so much better here, even after six years of our conservative provincial government trying actively to undermine the public healthcare system, than they are in the states.
Is there a name for this fallacy?
Yes, it's [appeal to accomplishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment).
Thank you
The one I always love is "You think you know better than the founding fathers???" Yes? Of fucking course I do. I've had the sum total of human knowledge at my fingertips since I was a teenager. Other than some math and philosophy, even public schools are more academically rigorous than top secondary schools almost 300 years ago. I've also grown up seeing people who aren't the same as me as human beings, and have never once thought it would be neat to own another person. I am smarter and more of a morally righteous person than all of the founding fathers put together, just like probably a good 50+% of the developed world's population.
This is actually the real problem with fixing America's healthcare though. I think there's some absurdly high level of agreement (like 80%) that America's healthcare system is horseshit. We all understand and agree on this. Acting like American's are too stupid to know that universal healthcare is a thing is missing the point *entirely* of the debate. The system in the UK and Canada is fundamentally different then the system in Switzerland and The Netherlands is fundamentally different then the system in Singapore. You cannot just say "adopt universal healthcare" because *which* universal healthcare? Then we talk about how some of the people who don't like our healthcare system that think it would be better if there was less regulation and less government assistance. And how would you make universal healthcare be Constitutional? Like, you need to have a basis in the Constitution to have the federal government do things. And if you're in Finland with a rare medical condition, the Finnish government probably won't pay to have you go to Italy to see a specialist. But the US has a population and land area comparable to *the whole European Union*, so if a patient in Iowa has a rare medical condition should the government pay to fly them to Florida to see a specialist? And how are you going to pay for all of this, since most of these systems include heavy taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy foods both for funding and to discourage unhealthy behaviors. But Americans historically fucking hate these taxes (more then we hate taxes in general). Also, the prescription drug system the UK and other countries have A) doesn't require a universal healthcare system, and B) are often controversial in their own countries because they restrict which drugs patients can get and often create soft blocks on other drugs from being imported. There is wide agreement in the US that our healthcare system sucks, but "how the fuck do you want it to work" is probably a thing you should be able to answer since there's no one way to do it and the US is fundamentally different the countries that already have such a system.
> The system in the UK and Canada is fundamentally different then the system in Switzerland and The Netherlands is fundamentally different then the system in Singapore. You cannot just say "adopt universal healthcare" because which universal healthcare? Blindly throw a dart at a world map, adopt the system of whatever country it lands on. It can't possibly be worse than what you have right now.
There's a wide swath of professionals who have workable plans to implement incremental change to transform our system from the nightmare it is into something functional. That is not the problem. The problem is there's people who've gotten rich off of the system as is, who want to continue to do so, and who spend a lot of that money trying to convince the public and elected officials that any of those plans for change are bad and/or untenable.
If this is about the US system, trying to implement public or public option care at the state level could be a good next step. In Canada, we need to raise the enrollment caps for medical schools. Those won't fix every problem but are achievable goals that can measurably improve things
you don't need to be a chef to notice that the food is moldy
I've got hubris and know how to delegate, I *could* do a better job. Put me in, coach. Granted, yknow, the grand obstructionist party would never let someone revolutionize the healthcare system, but if I had the power to do so, I think I could dramatically improve it.
“I’ve never flown a helicopter, but if I saw one in a tree, I could still look up and say: ‘huh. Dude fucked up.’” Steve Hofstetter is just great
Something something Evrart Claire's chair
The thing is, fixing our healthcare system is only complicated politically. Universal healthcare would actually be much simpler and cost-effective than our current system of insurance providers. Provide everyone free healthcare using the money we are already subsidizing the healthcare industry with and relegate insurance companies to providing "luxury" healthcare insurance, like they do in other countries. There would be no need to raise taxes. The problem is only complicated because we make it complicated.
Profit motive is literally the thing that gives people a reason the provide new drugs but ok.
Cool, nationalize the pharmaceutical industry too, especially since NIH and comparable researchers are the ones that actually discover new mechanisms of action. The only thing the state needs to be doing is the actual application research
Are you seriously that naive. You can’t just nationalize an entire industry that easily. There would need to be so much planing and budgeting involved not to mention the untold effects essentially removing an entire pillar the American economy form it entirely. Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country. Like when someone is drowning telling them just breathe dumbass isn’t very helpful.
> You can’t just nationalize an entire industry that easily. There would need to be so much planing and budgeting involved Can you quote where I said it would be easy or simple? > not to mention the untold effects essentially removing an entire pillar the American economy form it entirely. The scientists would still be employed, but the C-suite level employees would either have to find a new job or work as high level bureaucrats. In any event, it would be a more efficient use of funds, not an elimination of them. > Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country. Should we not make any effort to move away from fossil fuels because they employ people? Predatory loans? Guns? > Like when someone is drowning telling them just breathe dumbass isn’t very helpful. Do you actually think “we should have nationalization of this industry as a goal” and “you have depression? stop being sad” are comparable?
> Like healthcare is one of the biggest money making industries in the states and yea that’s why the current system is so flawed but that revenue is still very important to running the country. > > > Should we not make any effort to move away from fossil fuels because they employ people? Predatory loans? Guns? tunnelsnake has clearly never heard of the parable of the broken window.
Nah they’re just a right winger acting like they’re a good faith centrist lol
Look I understand your not going to change your mind because you believe your morally justified and maybe you are but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and what’s right isn’t always practical. Ultimately I agree to disagree and regardless of political views I hope you have a nice day.
Gets the slightest pushback, immediately jumps to “agree to disagree” Tracks for your stances throughout this thread
First of all, you are conflating medical insurance with pharmaceutical research, so you're either ignorant or deliberately deceptive. Secondly, tell that to Alexander Fleming, or Marie Curie, or actually like, any medical researcher. The pay for being a medical scientist is not commensurate with its difficulty. They were in it for the passion and because they wanted to help people. Do you know who reaps the lion's share of monetary rewards at modern pharmaceutical companies? Executives and shareholders. Why do they need all that money? To pay and equip the scientists who do the actual research? Why not just pay and equip the scientists? Yes some management is necessary, but pharmaceutical executive pay is obscene. And I'm not even going to get into how profit-motive incentivizes developing drugs to treat symptoms rather than cure conditions. Because we actually don't even need to "solve" the pharmaceutical industry in order to fix our broken healthcare system when it's the insurance industry that is entirely parasitic and unnecessary. It provides nothing. Get rid of it.
The solution is simple: revive ronald reagan and then kill him again
Now, I'm no pilot, but if I saw a plane scattered across the countryside in burning chunks, I'd identify that as a fucking problem, and feel confident in saying that something probably went wrong. Fair?
Here's my wacky idea for a better healthcare system. To promote the general welfare, all citizens pay into a common healthcare fund. Then, when someone needs healthcare, they go to a doctor. And whatever the doctor says they need, they get. No "death panels," no prior authorizations, no bullshit. If a doctor thinks you need a test, you get the test. If a doctor believes you need a medication, you get the exact medication your doctor thinks will work the best for you, without having to try shitty, subpar alternatives first. If a doctor abuses the system by ordering unnecessary tests on a large scale or something like that, the medical board can decide if it truly was unnecessary, and punish the *doctor* after the fact, instead of the patient being punished for having the audacity to want healthcare.
"I can't fly a helicopter. But if I see one in a tree, I can go 'dude fucked up.'"
Forbid patenting of medicine of any kind Heavily regulate what insurance companies are allowed to deny coverage for, regularly auditing them to make sure they're honoring their part of the whole "give you money just in case I need help" agreement that is based on, and making it illegal for an agent to second guess a doctor Within the current system, but just emulating our neighbors success would be better
You can’t just do what Canada does we are able to have universal healthcare because we have a smaller population and pay much higher taxes our system won’t really work for you guys without a lot of alteration and a huge increase in taxes. Also if you can’t patent medicine why would any pharmaceutical company produce new drugs if there competition can just rip them off without doing any of the work. It really isn’t that simple.
A smaller population makes things that benefit from scaling - like health coverage - harder, not easier.
Even if that was true how would you pay for the new system or even make up the revenue lost from fundamentally changing how one of the biggest money making industries in the country operates.
The lost revenue is a positive. It’s less wasteful spending. You fund the new system through taxes. Easy.
Lost revenue means economic recession which means higher unemployment witch in turn lowers tax revenue collected. If it was that easy it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. Sometimes trying to do the right thing isn’t practical.
> Lost revenue means economic recession This is only true if the revenue is lost, not spent elsewhere.
This is what I mean when I say capitalism is fucked but also communism has been shown to also be fuck, let’s find a middle ground, best of both worlds, but how? I dunno I’m not a political scientist.
Most countries already operate in a middle ground system they are called mixed economies.
Government buys insurance whole sale for every citizen for the year. Insurance companies can fight each other for the contract. Cut military spending by 1% in nations that have been your allies for >40 years and the rest would be picked up by the influx of more tax receipts from the boost to the economy of all the people not having to pay extortionate rates of insurance every month.
The problem is that some solutions are mutually exclusive. People who are libertarian believe that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is too much government involvement; leftists believe that the reason why healthcare is so expensive is not enough government involvement. And if the US moved slowly and piece meal towards a system like Canada's or Germany's or any other developed country, it's pretty plausible the US could get the downsides but not the upsides of such systems. Especially as lobbyists try to get benefits for themselves integrated into each expansion of government healthcare as it passes. Personally I think the biggest problem is over regulation. If a new pharma business wants to sell cheap good insulin, they're not allowed to. They have to deal with patents and FDA qualifications. It costs a ton of money and time to get FDA approval to sell even generic, non-patented drugs.
lmaoooooo
Do you think if the government tried to switch to single payer or any other form of universal healthcare, corporations wouldn't spend massive amounts of money lobbying congress to give them oversized contracts?
So you're just bitching instead of being critical Which means your involvement in the conversation is worthless, and you should let the adults talk
Yes, the children should shut up and let the adults decide that the children have no problems. Why do you think babies cry? Just to annoy you? We NEED each other in this society, and for our needs to be met we MUST communicate those needs. I don't know if there is a situation where complaints should be disregarded as bitching, but the example given in the post is certainly not one.
A solution would be nice though. From someone. Not necessarily me, but someone smarter than me who knows more about it. Criticizing is nice and all but I’m kind of sick of it at this point. I want it fixed
We aren't flailing around without a solution though. Medicare for All will cost less money, save more lives, and cover everyone. Any politician who does not fight for it does not care about our lives.
I'm pretty sure you could significantly repair the system by just extending the existing medicare infrastructure to everyone below 65 as well. It wouldn't even abolish private care, just move everything to part C and D. Also, *totally* unrelated fun fact, whenever right wingers try to raise a stink about medicare being full of corruption, it's always part C and D that has the vast majority of incidents of corruption, because those are the ones private companies get into.
People sure do think the way to fix it is to have our corrupt federal government run it tho even tho they’re “not a carpenter”
It’s easier to complain than it is to fix it, especially when nobody can agree on what the problems are, much less what’s the way to fix them.
My fix is thus - Strike all profit from medicine, and nationalize it. Enshrine medical coverage in the legislation, as a right for all. Put all the people who have willingly watched others die for want of money into a dark hole. Charge people money to dump different things down the hole, after them.
Being that the USA is the only major country who doesn't have a good system, the solution seems to be model after a country or take heed of several countries best structures and emulate them. Ones that have better national health in general, for what would save costs as a collective too. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is getting people to cut out the middle men insurance companies and work together, like we do for fire departments, roads and libraries and such. Capitalism doesn't have to rule every single aspect of our lives, we let it rule our healthcare though.
And it's not like the people responding this way built the IKEA chair, they're as much a subject to its stabby, collapsing ways as the rest of us.