Also, the US is a large nation. Crime could go down in many places while in some places crime goes up.
1 Like
I actually do. Completely eliminate government involvement in healthcare, other than to ensure contracts are not entered into under threat of force or fraudulently.
2 Likes
Given crime stats can be compiled from victim surveys (self accounts) and law enforcement reporting (not necessarily the criminal charges that eventuate)
What you’ve said here borders on conspiracy. That and cities in red states tend to have higher rates of violent crime
Barring outliers like Portland (other very liberal cities that enact policies leading to an influx of undesirables).
That and stop letting companies lobby as persons.
Citizens United was one of the worst rulings of this century.
What system would you prefer be set up in place as to ensure the average joe can afford healthcare?
I was questioning the rising crime thing. Data like you’ve posted I’ve seen before, but if you ask, many people will tell you it’s increasing or at very high levels compared to the past. I think stuff like social media and news are a culprit.
What @fitafter40 mentioned may have a grain of truth too. Perhaps it isn’t the DAs as stated, but changes in enforcement could skew stats.
IMO, the sky certainly isn’t falling in regards to crime.
One area of decline of the nation is certainly taxes which I just filed moments ago. IDK, what happened to getting a refund. I claim 0, and had to pay in almost $5K. WTF.
When I speak of crime, I mean the amount of violent crime, not a rise over a brief period of two years or less. As I’ve said, America is a violent country and I believe the amount of violent crime, the prison population (one of the highest in the developed world), and state of some or many schools and cities is inexcusable. No serious country would tolerate it, and the West used to not coddle criminals and punishments were often severe.
From the 1930s to the 1990s the American population doubled while the prison population went up by a factor of ten. That’s ridiculous.
And those places people call “bad neighborhoods,” the ones with frequent gun deaths, drug abuse, trash all over the place, and drug-addled people shuffling along the sidewalk, were actually fine places to live.
When I say America declined, I’m not just referring to the time since Evil Orange took office.
There are other areas in which it declined as well.
Many Americans, likely millions, since the 1960s have had their lives affected or uprooted by violent crime. It happened to my mom’s family twice.
I actually believe companies/corporations should be able to lobby, and agree with the Citizens United ruling(as far as I know-just from summaries). I just don’t think the government should have the powers that make lobbying worthwhile.
The same one that ensures the average citizen can get fat as hell eating out every meal.
I agree with this, but while they do and have citizens United has made things insane.
1 Like
I have a tremendous amount of difficulty believing that LE not responding to certain calls (a policy that may occur but isn’t formally on record) can substantiate the idea America’s crime rate is increasing… not dropping
When the trend for dropping rates of violent crime has been going on for decades.
As to other elements of Americas decline… or what may seem like decline i.e incarceration rates, drugs…
Starting in the 1960s, a number of bills were footed through with the explicit goal being to increase incarceration rates. Locking up individuals that the government didn’t like i.e hippies, political activists etc was the goal associated with these bills.
Private prisons became a thing in 1983 (at the time a uniquely American construct), and many of these prisons lobbied and provided ‘generous donations’ to judges if they’d dole out harsher sentences to minor offendors.
These prisons even had quotas, and members of law enforcement were compensated generously for ‘helping out’. There was an incentive to arrest and incarcerate as many people as possible for a long time.
By the time the late 90s came about, 1.3% of the American population was actively incarcerated… the vast majority were locked up for nonviolent, minor offences that other countries typically overlooked.
Note biggst increase in incarceration rates coincidentally occured right around when private prisons became a thing.
Even the influx of drug addiction that is DESTROYING entire cities right now. Rates of drug/alcohol abuse aren’t worse off now aside from recreational cannabis becoming mainstream. Even then… rates of use are similar to what they were in the late 70s.
Rather the drugs that are available have become more destructive. Look to use statistics back in the day pertaining to barbituates, amphetamines, opium and benzodiazepines.
The US has had a HUGE problem with drug abuse since… well forever… at 1860 the average American household went through one handle (roughly two litres) of whisky per week.
Amphetamines, opium, heroin and the likes were over the counter for a long time… and yes… they caused problems.
An entire class of highly addictive tranquilisers were synthesised with anxious, restless housewives in mind. Before benzodiazepines came about, housewives were given barbituates as if they were candies… qualludes as well… very commonly given to housewives for ‘hysteria’ or anxiety.
And these drugs were abused all the time, physicians knew they were dangerous and habit forming… and supply was diverted… they all quickly became street drugs… Not that it mattered so long as women kept settint the table, making dinner and staying at home but I digress. America has been drugged up and over medicated for the LONGEST time now…
The mass influx of zombies sleeping on the streets and mass criminality associated with the drug addiction we see today largely stems from the influx of newer, more dangerous narcotics… but organised crime also took off with speakeasys and alcohol, cocaine and opium etc.
However as opium was also OTC in certain preparations for eons, and it wasn’t ALWAYS a prohibited imort it wasn’t as profitable as alcohol during the era of prohibition.
Fentanyl, crystal meth and crack cocaine. Anyone who scoffs at this idea because ‘surely drug use is at an all time high now. These are stupid details that don’t matter’ needs to look up the difference between opium/morphine and a fentanyl + xyalazine mix… or the difference between powder and crack cocaine… or regular amphetamine vs crystal meth…
Drug use arguably peaked in the states during the 1970s… in 1979 more than half of year 12 students in NYC reported having used coke in the past 12 months.
The early 1900s through to the 1950s were not a time of low drug use… not by a long shot… opium dens, tranquilisers and amphetamines were rampant. Heroin was even briefly romanticised during the 1940s due to the mysterious allure it had associated with it. Heroin was known to be used by musicians… many musicians sang about drugs
The 1931 jazz song minnie the moocher talks about coke and opium for example. Had fentanyl been sold on the streets in the 30s as opposed to opium it would have wrecked havok back then just as it does now. Fentanyl is far more addictive (more likely to get hooked) and unlike opium or heroin that only needs to be dosed 2-4 times per day (less for opium taken in tea form) fentanyl needs to be dosed every sixty minutes or so to keep withdrawls away.
And why have more destructive drugs wound up proliferating within America?
In the 30s chances are you wouldn’t even go to jail over minor possession. Especially if your drug of abuse was say… over the counter amphetamines (that are schedule II now). From the 40s-50s, addiction was treated as a public health crisis. Only with Nixon did it become a predomiantly criminal issue…
I’ll end with my families experience with violent crime.
Some of my extended family has recently been pushed out of France. They were being subject to threats and harrassment
The rate of violent crime is decreasing in France…
My family is leaving Johannesburg in droves… but believe it or not, the rate of violent crime in Johannesburg while still very high… has dropped substantially since the 90s…
Not that I’d want to raise a kid in South Africa. I happen to indirectly know a family who was held at gunpoint in SA, their daughter was gang raped during this ordeal.
That’s terrible… absolutely vile… but the statistics still show the rate of violent crime in Johannesburg is dropping.
My anecdote is a moot point here. Just about every family member I have who stayed in SA has been the victim of SOME crime (robbery, mugging etc) at least once over the 2-3 + decades they’ve lived in SA.
If it weren’t for two very vocal minorities (opposing extremes of the sociopolitical spectrum) deepening Americas divide coupled with ease of access to weapons through licit or illicit channels, poor healthcare, rising costs of living and ease of access to highly destructive, previously non existent illicit drugs… America probably wouldn’t have nearly as many problems.
Unfortunately there’s both a financial and political incentive to keep the culture wars going. Without lobbying from fringe groups i’d argue democrats and republicans wouldn’t care about issues like abortion, PC culture, covid etc. Many of which are losing issues with voters anyway.
Even now… rates of alcoholism aren’t increasing… if you look at the opiate issue… heroin overdose deaths are actually decreasing in number now… the skyrocketing increase in deaths is almost entirely due to fentanyl. Not due to more opiate users per capita… but due to fentanyl… and fentanyl is what causes the ‘zombies strung out on the streets’.
Imagine America under centrist leadership where common ground amongst both democrats and republicans could be found!
Americas violent crime problem isn’t getting worse, the drug problem is largely a byproduct of more destructive drugs gaining ground (and I’d ask how/why did this become the case).
One could even argue America MAY NOT BE declining as much as we think it is. Americas future depends on the health/wellbeing of gen Z and up.
What is the future of American politics? Will democracy prevail?
Whats going to happen with American healthcare, student loans, costs of living, Americas warped criminal justice system?
If these issues can be sorted out, even with tensions… America will continue being one of the ‘better countries’.
Current state of privatised healthcare has allowed pharmacueticsl companies to unethically jack up prices for basic meds like insulin
Has also led to hospitals taking advantage of a patients lack of insurance… leading to hospital bills of 100K + for an overnight stay after you’ve had a heart attack
Not everyone can afford health insurance, and not all jobs provide basic healthcare
Why not universal healthcare + private healthcare for those who can afford it?
This seems to work better than the current status quo present in America
Even if it isn’t perfect…
Its something…
Why not get government out of healthcare?
Can you outline a form of privatised healthcare that is genuinely affordable for the average lower middle class to middle class American?
Private healthcare provided through employment is good provided you don’t have health issues to begin with
At which point employers can and will discriminate on the basis of health status
Therefore those with say… certain rheumatological disease states, congenital or acquired conditions will be blacklisted.
Provided private medical insurance can be purchased… once again the markup may be exceedingly expensive for those with pre-existing conditions.
Not everyone is lucky enough to be healthy. Under a dynamic with no government involvement re healthcare distribution the onus is on the individual and/or private corporations to provide a duty of healthcare.
Private corporations and companies alike will discriminate because it is in their best interests to do so.
What job wants to hire individual A who has great qualifications… top of his class… but he has ankylosing spondlytis and therefore will have a high risk of fracturing his/her spine, a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, Cauda equina syndrome and needs insurance to subsidise expensive disease modifying therapy (including frequently the drug methotrexate that the US has been stupid enough to de facto ban in certain areas).
Over individual B. Perhaps similar qualifications… no risk…
I don’t know what the logistics are of firing someone because they wind up getting diagnosed with something horrible like ankylosing spondylitis or multiple sclerosis. I assume it’s illegal
But provided an emoloyer is responsible for an employees health cover… i’ll bet it happens…
Why should your employer… or a private corporation have to fund your disease modifting therapy?
Another problem with privatised healthcare in it’s purest form. Resources are finite and highly concentrated (unlike public where resources are finite and spread egregiously thin). It’s a markup to ‘who can afford this superior treatment modality’.
If EVERYONE could afford it, you’d have the same issues you see with universal healthcare… long wait times, cookie cutter approaches, lack of individualised patient care.
Then we get into predatory markups of medications, hospital stays, cost of surgery within hospitals who know they can either claim egregious amounts from insurance OR force someone into debt by making the uninsured individual pay out of pocket.
So… how would you ensure a “private only” approach is affordable for all while enabling those who can afford a better standard of care to recieve a better standard of care.
There needs to be some sort of “net” that covers everyone so you don’t have people putting mortgages on their property to afford insulin or pay for the chemotherapy they need to survive while at the same time allowing highly tailored, individualised care for those who can afford/are willing to pay for it.
That’s where universal basic healthcare comes in… for all its flaws… it’s better than no healthcare. On top of this you’d have private healthcare
In Australia, more than half of Aussies have private health insurance. The minority that don’t (typically lower to lower middle class) are still covered by the public system… which isn’t great… but getting sick through factors beyond your control won’t bankrupt you
I can’t forsee a private only approach that doesn’t lead to selective and overt discrimination against those who are sick. I can’t see a private ONLY approach that is affordable for the masses.
A competitive, free market will provide the most desirable forms of healthcare available, etc.
I think I agree with most of what you said. I would expect those things. Capitalism and markets are not perfect solutions for all things; just better than the alternatives.
It shouldn’t, unless that’s part of its contract with you.
Scarcity is precisely why privatization and capitalism are needed in healthcare.
Or maybe more medical personnel with prescription-writing permission, FaceTime appointments, etc. Maybe someone wouldn’t go into the ER with a disfigured joint and have to wait for a bunch of people with sniffles.
Should be easy to undercut folks that do that.
Privatizing healthcare.
Some people may not want such a “net.” Others may not want to pay for it for others. Still others may indeed want such a thing, so I’d imagine insurance would still exist.
I’d rather…not.
I don’t know anything about healthcare in Australia, but…If it doesn’t bankrupt the sick person, who does it bankrupt? How many sick people does it take to bankrupt healthy people?
And I can’t see a public approach that doesn’t lead to discrimination, waste, further legislation, and increased nanny-statism.
Will respond soon here
Until then
Prism!
A total fantasy.
Like healthcare.
Another misunderstanding how economics work on the federal level.
Yes paying less with better outcomes is awful. Who would want that. I’d much rather have the freedom to go bankrupt trying to save my child’s life.
Again another fundamental misunderstanding of how economics work on a federal level.
And all of this is true under our “healthcare” system whose primary goal are profits not health.
Better than people going bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare or dying because of it.
Ahhhh no, because it doesn’t exist.
Why not greedy privatization out of healthcare?