dogemaster2028

You are speculating wildly.

You don’t have to be racist. Even British can be bad spellers. And non native English speakers can be perfect English grammarians.

In America, foreigners can be citizens.

In certain polls, not all legal immigrants want America to become their shitty country they came from. Maybe that’s why they came in the first place?

What statement of mine is “fixated on nativism”?

American engineers can be bad grammarians too.

- Jon Richelieu-Booth for posting a picture of himself with a gun in the US

- Jordan Parlour for Facebook posts that were deemed ‘hateful.’

- Bernadette Spofforth for a post with a “mild inaccuracy”

- Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, after raising concerns in a private parents’ WhatsApp group about the hiring process of their daughter’s school

- Lucy Connolly, for a post calling for mass deportation and to set fire to hotels housing immigrants

- Norbert Gyurcsik, for having “extreme right wing music”

Germany, you too.

If I was speaking badly about you in social media, I would understand it if you don’t want me at your house.

Why would tourists want to come to a place they dislike?

I don’t go to UK anymore for example.

You are allowed to say it. Unlike UK, you won’t be arrested. But you won’t be allowed in.

Besides, why would you want to come if you don’t like it here?

The problem, at least in our American mindset, is that since America’s birth, there has been a marked reluctance to have unelected bodies be responsible for anything that impacts the people, ESPECIALLY anything that presumes some globalization intention or some overarching aristocratic ruler (and with good reasons).

Central banking works because problems are instantly catastrophic to the system, whereas healthcare systems are not that fragile. They can survive broken for a long time.

Everybody is okay having a central lender of last resort because the problem is technical, typically unemotional, and in general, benefits every participant equally (because everybody loses is the system collapses).

Healthcare is different in that it affects MY decisions on a regular basis. America is individualistic and self reliant. We never want some government bureaucrat deciding what treatment [I] should or shouldn’t get if [I] can afford it with my own independently earned money. [You] should take care of [Yourself], save your own money, eat healthy, exercise, or not, and live with your consequences.

States have power too. So it does not matter much if some Bernie politician has some fantasy about some central single payer system that has some theoretical average benefit if it restricts ME from making my own choices.

Other countries have other cultures and foundational principles, so Bernie may have better luck there.

But not here.

Is it limiting? Probably for this case. But the fact is the system works for many other things. Everyone wants to come here. It’s the best country in the world etc etc. It does not have to be perfect. But it’s the best we get with the philosophy that made the country what it is.

Does it suck for healthcare? Overall, probably. But not for [ME].

We saw the system has limitations in other cases (think pandemics etc, but even now, many Americans can’t forgive the politicians that kept them imprisoned in their own homes).

You have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But not to anything that must be provided by someone else, like healthcare.

In a constitutional republic like the US, it’s simply too risky to execute major improvements in a big bang fashion. It’s not that different from engaging in a multi-decade software migration project. Sometimes, small changes is really the only path forward.

Part of the reason why Obama, initially a unifying force, eventually became known as a Divider In Chief (in addition to some racial commentary around police work) was that the bold changes of Obamacare left too many victims behind who ended up worse off.

You have to start with the principles of the country and work with them in mind, if you expect to be successful. You also have to assume future change will be dependent on the political winds of the future.

There is likely a lesson somewhere here about introducing “lean healthcare” style of changes instead of “big bang,” but I haven’t taken the time to articulate them.

Maybe starting with principles and making yearly changes that can easily be undone or redone by future administrations is the only path forward.

The Supreme Court is not “a political opponent.” It’s literally the way the country works. It found the requirements for states to participate to be unconstitutional. In fact, it was also SCOTUS who eventually determined in 2012 that the individual mandate penalty was functioning as a tax for constitutional purposes. This was the basis for upholding the law. The mandate itself was not upheld under the Commerce Clause but survived because the financial penalty was deemed a tax.