Feel free to look at the many, many, many alternative polls over the years. This is well known to anyone who has done any research into the topic at all.
Take the poll in 2026 after ACA subsides evaporate and Medicaid cuts. Highest satisfaction is for government run insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare).
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-are-sati... ("Overall, 82% of Americans said they’re satisfied with their health care coverage, including a third who said they are very satisfied with their current coverage. The group that reported being the most satisfied were older adults, with 9 in 10 Americans over 65 years old saying they were satisfied. And 42% in that age group reported being “very satisfied.”. Roughly 9 in 10 of those who have public health insurance coverage through Medicare or Medicaid also reported being satisfied with coverage, compared to 77% of those with private health care coverage.")
https://www.citizen.org/article/public-support-for-medicare-... ("Support for Medicare-for-All continues to rise, whether in Congress, state legislatures, or among the American people. Recent polls indicate that six in ten Americans support Medicare-for-All. In addition, more than 60 percent believe that government is responsible for ensuring health coverage for all Americans. And nearly 70 percent of all voters, including battleground voters, identify health care as an important issue in upcoming elections.")
Yes, it's noted in the poll I linked (which is the same one as your first link) that the highest satisfaction is with government run insurance.
Not enough people are on ACA with subsidies to move the poll results that much, and Medicaid cuts aren't going to make people less satisfied with their private insurance.
I have no idea why you and so many other people seem to be taking my explanation as to why the US doesn't adopt universal socialized medicine as some sort of endorsement of the status quo.
GitHub published a postmortem for yesterday's outage already, and the cause surprised me: They blame scrapers, or rather ONE specific scraper, for taking down GitHub for 7 hours.
Setting up a separate company for a major construction project is so common that it would be surprising to hear someone didn’t do it. The structure of the OP makes it hard to understand if there’s some more specific aspect he’s objecting to.
Will the app requirement be disclosed at purchase everywhere? IE: If I am buying on a third-party online travel agent, will the checkout process state that in order to board the flight at the cost quoted, that I will need to have a smartphone with the app installed?
What, the post where DHH implies that brown immigrants are rapists and criminals and that Britain is being invaded and needs to be cleansed? The one that paints five-time convicted criminal and fascist Tommy Fucking Robinson as some sort of folk hero? That man is a post away from shrieking about remigration for non-whites, just like many of his new-found allies already do.
You are doing exactly what happens repeatedly in these sorts of conversations. You completely ignore all subtext, all historical context, all conclusion, all metatextual reading in favor of exact out-of-context literal wordings which you claim will convince you of the case. That is not what will happen, but of course you know that already.
No xenophobic racist with an ounce of sense is going to write something like "brown people are rapist criminals who have invaded our lands and must be cleansed". It's absurd to maintain we must provide that as proof or it didn't happen.
I just feel if you are going to call someone otherwise respected like DHH astonishingly racist it's basic decency to be able to quote one sentence where he is. I'm quite good at reading subtext and to me it reads like DHH: "They're still reeling from the Pakistani rape gangs"... critics: "he's saying he hates brown people". No he didn't. That's what let the rapes go on for years - that if you prosecuted rape you'd be called a racist who went after brown people.
The whole thing reminds me of Hillary's calling Americans deplorable so as to stop Donald Trump. Didn't that work out well?
A direct thing he wrote is "Britain should be a kingdom primarily for the Brits", where previously he has unambigiously defined "Brits" and "native Brits" as "white British people". That's racist.
>There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.
with no mention of Brits being defined as "white British people". I'm not sure the source for the Brits=white thing?
When he's discussing "native Brits" he is clearly, if indirectly, referring to white British people. He links to a Wikipedia page as citation for his statistic, and that statistic on Wikipedia is _explicitly_ about white people.
> 59% of Londoners were born in the UK! How could it possibly be that only a third of them are native Brits? The article’s first section breaks down the demographic data in a table. The first ethnicity listed? “White British” at 36.8% as of the 2021 census. Ah.
Where is the logical flaw here? How could you read the original DHH quote as anything other than “non-white Brits are not native Brits”?
From DHH’s blog post:
> Don't give up. You survived the Blitz. Britain will be back.
I'll give you it sounds a bit iffy but it's the ending of an post that includes things like "British police are now making 30 arrests a day for wrongthink" which many have criticised.
Funnily, when I read up on the state of the art, I felt let down that we are apparently still far away from being able to dissolve cataracts with eye drops. I'm hoping for that when my time comes.
> I feel truly lucky to have been born into a time of modern medicine.
Well it really depends on how you look at it...
I would argue that the truly 'modern' aspect of cataract surgery is the IOL manufacturing and implantation image-guided systems.
I have a massive respect for Ophthalmic surgeons but worth mentioning (most) current cataract surgeries still imply:
1. A manual incision (read stabbing you with a handheld scalpel)
2. Capsulorhexis (manually open the lens capsule)
3. Using a handheld ultrasonic 'jackhammer' to destroy the old lens and quite literally suck it out, working in a foggy environment with limited depth perception in a tiny chamber right next to a thin film behind the lens.
4. Finally then implanting the new IOL lens.
So with so much of 'modern' surgery still depending on Human Perception and Human submilimiter dexterity, with surgeons who are likely doing 16 plus surgeries a day. It is truly a remarkable statistic that only 5% of Cataract surgeries suffer complications.
And if you think the odds are against surgeons in Cataract surgery wait until you read up on retinal surgery, then it really drives the point home of how insanely skilled Ophthalmic surgeons are.
