Re: Tariffs and bikes

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 10:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 4/11/2025 3:52 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

 
Here's another related mind boggle:
 
The polling in the USA indicates that most people are unhappy with the
federal government,
 
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/congressional/approval-rating
 
  yet many of them want to put government bureaucrats in charge of
their health care.

As opposed to the current scheme in which private insurance companies
are in charge of their health care?

That's bad enough..  Having a government bureaucrat in charge is even
worse.

Hmm. How can we see which works better? Maybe by examining health care
costs and results for countries using each scheme?

Including the fact that having government health care isn't a choice.
There's no competitive alternative. Governments can mandate procedures
and they can more easily deny them. Government bureaucrats are more
likely to be corrupt.

By that standard, the American health care system sucks. It's by far the
most expensive in the world, and delivers far, far from the best results.

IMO, cost calculations and the health care data is manipulated by
pollsters.  Health care data is also heavily influenced by culture.

Granted, that doesn't prove that a converted U.S. system would be
better. It may be that U.S. politicians could find a way to screw it up.
They seem to be almost uniquely capable of screwing up good ideas.
>
Overall, I remain astonished by people who try to defend the U.S. health
care system. I can only assume those people are almost totally
innumerate; or perhaps on the take with the current system.

I don't care if you remain astonished, or what you assume. I most
definitely oppose any additional socialization of health care.

--
C'est bon
Soloman