Bay 12 Games Forum

…

why?

A workforce that stays healthy is a workforce that keeps working. That’ll be much cheaper in the long-run if people can actually afford to go to get healthcare.

Equally so you seem to be assuming that the only saving that can be made is via wage costs. In a single payer system, particularly when that single payer is the government, you won’t get the likes of Shkreli buying orphaned drugs and jacking up the price 50,000%, and even otherwise it will have a depressing effect on the price of drugs because manufacturers woukd have the choice of selling their drugs at a fair price, or not selling their drugs at all.

Edit: what you also seem to be forgetting is that if people aren’t paying for private insurance, they can be taxed (like National Insursnce in the UK) to help pay for universal healthcare.

I mean… what makes you so certain there’s going to be a huge amount of unemployed anyway?

Universal healthcare is going to require more people to do clerical work and things like that given the higher demand in healthcare, so if the private healthcare insurance business is expected to go tits up you ask the companies to restructure a little bit to employ some of those people, you offer re-training programs to allow people to move from the insurance market to the healthcare market (or indeed other markets or industries) and after that if anyone is still unemployed it’d be on them.

Could do it systematically so any snags in the plans can be identified and solved early and not become problems later on. Go hybrid so not everyone gets unemployed all at once.

There are things that can be done, and probably a lot of time to figure out given the scale of what universal healthcare will have to be.

Quote from: ChairmanPoo on May 21, 2023, 01:06:36 pm

Quote

I guess also you don’t have an obligation to do that… but technically nobody has an ovligation to anything so I don’t know what that buys you

I'm guessing you're trolling, but in case you are not, surely you realize the kind of absurd slipperu slope fallacy you just engaged in right?

Not trying to troll, I was aiming for reductio ad absurdum.  Basically there is no such thing as "obligation" in the first place; it's all social construct so you do have to be very careful when you throw around words like "obligation."  If you say you are not obliged to do something someone else wants, don't turn around and be angry that someone else doesn't do what you want.

That's why I prefer to use phrasing like "It's preferable to act kindly, so long as you are able, even if you don't feel like it" rather than "You're obliged to act kindly, regardless if you don't feel like it."

I mean, what good is it to treat people nicely, with whom you have no conflict? True character is treating strangers and yes even enemies kindly.  BUT - don't confuse "kindness" with "let them do whatever they want."  You can be kind to a thief, but you don't have to let them get away with thievery or help them commit crimes. You can be kind to someone who committed violence in your neighborhood, but you don't have to allow them to run free to commit more violence.  Hopefully that distinction is apparent...don't confuse forgiveness with trust is another way to think about it. I can forgive someone who cheated on their spouse, but I'm not going to trust them to remain faithful any more.

I mean… the first person anyone should be kind to is themselves. Refusing to engage with someone who is so willfully ignorant as to believe part of your identity is an illness is a step toward that.

I think it depends on the religion of who the liege is of the land rather than the person who runs the place. Unless some weird shit happened in your game, Christians are alright to be holy warring Muslim held lands.

I also imagine you being Catholic had a lot to do with not being defended by your liege, possibly also being a child too. I’ve not played CKII for a while but there’s usually significant relationship penalties between Muslims and Christians.

You have that the wrong way round. Inflation devalues money (you either consider it the percentage of how much value your money loses over time, or how much more expensive goods are) so that $200 isn’t worth $216 in future, it means that $216 is worth the same as the $200 was in the past, or something that cost $200 then costs $216 now.

The US debt keeps going up so… inflation doesn’t really matter too much, since the old debt is either being paid off or subsidized by new debt.

I hope that’s the game I think it is because high diving into a glass of water is always entertaining.

Edit: it is that game, lots of things I don’t recall in it also.