devinl

~1/5 of Apple's Services revenue comes from having google be the default search ($9-10B per year), so I wonder if this new search will coincide with them ramping up their own search ads business [https://9to5mac.com/2019/11/15/apple-ad-revenue/]

This seems to predate FIDO2. https://solokeys.com/ would be a better option if you prefer separate keys for each site (via FIDO2) and open source hardware.

I agree that short term providers will likely take in less money with a "Medicare for all" solution, but I think the problem presented by this blog post is overstated/misrepresented: 1) The "Over 65" demographic visits the hospital more than other demographics so comparing raw number of people is an apples to oranges comparison (65+ somewhere between 3-10x more likely to utilize an inpatient stay, https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb235-Inpati...) 2) Roughly half of all administrative costs in US hospitals are associated with billing. Administrative costs are lower in single payer systems because hospitals don't need to bargain and coordinate billing with multiple parties. Doctors will still be needed by hospitals, but hospital workers/sales people/VPs who bargain with insurance companies will be less necessary. This is a significant percentage of hospital expenditures [https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2...] Administrative staff seem much more likely to see paycuts or staffing cuts rather than necessary staff like doctors/nurse.

Do economic experts still think trickle down/supply side economics are a good idea? It seemed to be a controversial issue among economists in the 70s and 80s. From what I could find, the modern consensus among economists is that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't effective at increasing GDP. (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reforms )