If you want early stage bulk screeners, go for it, I'm sure you need them, but don't take much of my time or the math don't math.

That's how he won, he exploited the gap between Republican voters and Republican politicians. As soon as I heard him sounding exactly like your average R voter chattin' at a diner, I knew he was dangerous and we were in for a wild ride.

That was a good idea. But we stopped.

This isn't recent; we've been heading this way for decades, and not by accident.

The sole local thing I've been missing around here is a pharmacy that's not fucking CVS, which is awful (and Walgreens isn't better). I hadn't been able to find one using Maps.

Just tried this tool, very hopeful. There are six CVSs closer than the nearest independent pharmacy, literally a dozen towns closer to me than any of these independent pharmacies, and not a one with a non-megachain pharmacy in it :-/ Not driving 25ish minutes each way when we have to go two or three times a month (kids with regular prescriptions). Bummer. I really, really hate CVS.

> And before you say "there's no other option" you're wrong, unless you live in a deep rural area where the nearest store is 20 minutes away and is a Dollar General, you are wrong.

This varies greatly regionally. From what I can tell the places with the healthiest local business options are ones where not just some neighborhoods or a town or two are (relatively) rich, but the whole area is rich, and at least somewhat densely populated. Which makes sense, but is sad for all the small towns out there with people really ideologically dedicated to "local business"—there's a reason those struggle and often fail within a year or two, in those places, and it's because there's no money in the area.

Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.

$300 full-retail for two pairs of sneakers in the downtown of a major city is not rich people money anymore, the goddamn trash-tier sneakers for my kids at Kohls often cost like $50+ a pair—on clearance. That's dead-center middle-class spending now, and the middle class has had shit service a long time.

I get it. $100 sneakers should be premium. $150? Pft! If you're somewhere that stocks those, it's gotta be nice, right? I mean damn. But not so much any more.

I suspect there's something similar going on with the rest of what they're seeing. Though yes, I agree that the middle class once again receiving any amount of actual service instead of constant attempts to fuck them over and nickel-and-dime them would be rad.

[edit] Aldi did automate the management of getting shoppers to do that work, because there’s not a person standing there taking and handing out quarters, but (very simple) machines. Without those machines they might need a person, so that hypothetical role (the existence of which might make the whole scheme uneconomical) is automated. But they didn’t automate cart return, all that work’s still being done by people.

But it’s possible I was reading too generously and this was a botched attempt to employ “effect”, which would also fit (and better, I think).

Thinking you’ve found the one main reason makes it easy for opponents of reform to dismiss your solution, because you haven’t found it, because there’s not a main reason. It also means “cut private insurance out of the process” doesn’t fix it

Consider: public insurance schemes in the US spend far more for some given amount of care than peer states do, even as provides complain these programs don’t pay enough—that latter part is because all their vendors, suppliers, and personnel demand more money than their counterparts in the rest of the OECD states. Every single part of the system costs too much.

Switzerland pays more than us for doctors, barely, but also has unusually high healthcare costs for Europe (though not as bad as ours) and is richer than the US. Luxembourg is close but is an outlier for basically everything, they crush us in median income and such as well. Bermuda, a little lower, but it’s an island nation (everything’s more expensive) and, like Lux, richer than the US, another outlier. Nearest comparable looks like Australia, paying doctors an average (this avoids missing the effects of crazy-expensive top-end specialists, as a median might) about 76% what we do. The rest of the OECD’s lower than that.

You want one thing that is contributing, but such a trivial amount that it’s hardly worth addressing until everything else is fixed: it’s doctors’ liability insurance. They really want to reduce that cost, for obvious reasons, and Republicans want to fix it because… they hate poor people who’ve been harmed being compensated “too much” I guess… and it does contribute to higher costs, but very little compared to practically everything else. That one gets way more attention than it merits.

The unifying factor of other countries’ healthcare schemes that keeps them cheaper than the US doesn’t seem to be that they’ve minimized the role of private insurance (some haven’t!) but that they have explicit (like government-set price lists) or or implicit (via e.g. monopsony) price controls. It seems like you can use any of several approaches, some of which keep private health insurance in a prominent role (Switzerland! Though they at least have the good sense to force them to be nonprofits, IIRC) so long as you have, one way or another, price controls.

The only near-exception to this I’m aware of is Singapore, but… it’s Singapore. Plus they do have some explicit price controls, and I think it’s fair to say healthcare providers there might consider there to be a persistent, credible implied threat of more price controls or even harsher measures from the government, should prices rise too much, because… it’s Singapore.

[edit] FWIW I do think fixing the insurance situation is an excellent place to start, even the best starting point, and that the insurers in the US are probably beyond salvaging through integrating them into a better system, and should just be eliminated or their role drastically reduced; I think this would make less progress toward fixing prices than some suppose it would, though would still do a lot for that, but it’d, crucially, fix most of the hidden costs of our system, like patient-hours lost to waiting on hold to try to get insurance to pay what they’re supposed to, HR folks messing with insurance-related issues, et c, which are huge and don’t make it into straight cost comparisons with other countries because those aren’t “healthcare costs” (putting a dollar value on that would make us look even worse than we already do)

US healthcare is so expensive because basically every single part of it costs more than it "should", by quite a bit. Including, yes, doctors.

I would personally avoid writing that "poorly composed sentences" have an "affect"—rather than the writer having or presenting an affect, or the sentences' tone being affected—as I find an implied anthropomorphizing of "sentences" in that usage, which anthropomorphizing isn't serving enough useful purpose, to my eye, that I'd want it in my writing, but I'm not sure I'd call that an error either.

What did you mean?

> Commas and parentheses can do it all, and an excess of either is a sign of poorly edited prose.

This attitude, however, is a disease of modern English literacy.

I do them without surrounding spaces, because that's... how you're supposed to use them, and it's also less typing.

They also used to be a really good Shibboleth to tell if someone was using a Mac—the key combo on there is easy, and also easy to remember, so Mac users were far more likely than the median to employ em-dashes. It wasn't a sure tell, but it was pretty reliable.

Mosh means a lot less, "Sigh..." up-arrow, enter. A small thing, but why live with it when you can just not?

Nb announced revisions aren't a problem at all, and not one that "blockchain" prevents anyway (you can publish new stuff on a blockchain, no problem)

You can put anything "on a blockchain" but the cases in which that does anything useful versus any of several simpler and cheaper solutions are fairly narrow.