Shoresy

Here's the AI explanation since you like AI:


Healthcare costs didn’t explode because doctors woke up greedy or because “capitalism failed.” They exploded because we removed market price discipline and replaced it with government subsidies and guaranteed third-party payment.


Look at the boring data. In 1980, total U.S. healthcare spending averaged about $930 per person. By 1990, it was roughly $2,400 per person — more than 2.5× higher in just one decade, long before Obamacare even existed.


What changed wasn’t human nature. It was incentives. In 1986, Congress mandated emergency care, expanded third-party payment, and subsidized losses. Once patients weren’t paying directly and providers were guaranteed reimbursement, prices stopped being constrained by what people could afford.


Hospitals charged more because insurers covered the rising prices. Insurers paid more because subsidies and employer plans absorbed the cost. Governments expanded subsidies because prices rose. That endless loop was already fully visible in the 1980s.


Obamacare didn’t start the fire — it poured concrete around it. When demand is guaranteed, and payment is detached from the consumer, rising costs aren’t a failure of the system. They’re the predictable outcome.


Inflation, deficit spending, and taxes are just how the bill eventually gets paid.

Shoresy

Political Learings

Shoresy · 10 months ago

I find Biden to be a monumentally compassionate person for pardoning Trump by sitting on those Epstein files for 4 years, even if it cost his party a presidential election. That is true sainthood.

Shoresy
The alliance alone is not supposed to be the deterrent


Lol, it's not a deterrent at all. If anything, the present-day actions of NATO actively encourage escalation and the buildup of opposing forces. NATO literally greenlighted the 2022 destruction of Nordstream, despite Germany's objections, for the sole purpose of global escalation. Echoes of WW1 come to mind. Rigid alliances, security guarantees turning local tensions into global ones, and everyone convinced they’re acting “defensively.”


Definitely nothing this hemisphere needs to get sucked up into again, unless starting wars for profit is all of a sudden a good thing.

Shoresy

No reason not to take the janitor's money as well with the self-licking icecream machine of subsidies and price caps. That's reality vs morality.

Shoresy

The cost of living erases wealth fast over time, and much faster if you wanna live wealthy. People in a dusty history book lost their money long ago. History isn’t a moral balance sheet where ancient suffering guarantees the existence of a modern Disney villain heir. In fact, as recently as this year, people are filing bankruptcy because ICE won't let them staff their sweat houses anymore in "sanctuary cities." Wealth tied to exploitation isn’t durable at all. It doesn’t need generations or even decades to evaporate. The moment the exploitative input is removed, the “wealth” often collapses immediately.

Shoresy

That's simple. Enforce laws against slavery and illegal labor. Problem solved. Pretty sure that was done over 100 years ago. People who had money and capital invested with slaves back then went bankrupt pretty fast, both the owners and the banks underwriting them lost near everything.

Shoresy

I'd be far more upset with a subsidy taken from my pocket or a money printer and rewarding someone else for doing NOTHING.


If a person wants to spoil their own kid, at least I don't have to pay for it, nor will it cause massive inflation. In fact, that spoiled kid is likely to reward producers when he blows it all like most trust fund babies. That's far and away more beneficial than anything the government does to reward producers.

Shoresy

It's still a reward for producing nothing, though, even if you didn't just print the money.

The subsidy then becomes a patch to fix the production shortages caused by the price cap, a self-licking ice cream cone where the government middlemen take a massive cut while also rewarding producers for...not producing...

Shoresy

Don't subsidies indirectly cause inflation when they print a ton of money and then just stuff it in people's pockets for doing nothing?

Shoresy

It's easier to use a car, since you can conveniently say you were just trying to parallel park. And there are quite a lot more car owners than gun owners in America. An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age....

Shoresy

Objectively, if NATO were a sufficient and reliable standalone defense mechanism, then Poland would have had zero incentive to go full Israel/Swiss with their military buildup since 2014. The fact that Poland did exactly that is strong evidence that alliances are not trusted to stop first contact, only to allegedly shape what happens after it. As a deterrent tool, it's proven not nearly as reliable as the actual military buildup Poland chose to rely on. Putin tested the resolve of NATO in 2014 and predicted this correctly. NATO is, evidently, since 2014, a dog-and-pony show meant to fool the uneducated, but for the sake of argument, I will steelman your position that NATO remains a valid vehicle for logistical support in the region. That still leaves NATO sorely lacking in value for deterrence. For those Americans and Canadians indoctrinated into feeling secure over actual security, NATO is a no-risk fan club. Poland obviously can't afford that cost-benefit analysis. The US and Canada should have withdrawn the very year NATO members imposed the Eurozone tariff, or at least after the 2014 failures, because the costs of such a tariff far outweigh the deterrence benefits of NATO then and today. Maybe the pre-2014 fees to the Eurozone were worth it when the paper tiger still held some bite, but definitely not after 2014. To steelman your argument, the 2014 NATO response in Poland should have been to quickly build up UK/French/German bases in Poland and NATO troops massively assembled in hundreds of thousands along the border instead of having Poland go at it alone. That's not a practical functioning alliance. Instead, what happened was rhetoric and toothless sanctions. Symbolism optimized for theoretical alliance cohesion, not practical battlefield math. Poland correctly read that as: no one in NATO is going to absorb the first hit for us.

Shoresy

Or militarily. Since it doesn't care about keeping Russia in check, or is actually actively building Russia up like Germany is, there is no need to support them anymore, as it's indirectly helping Russia.

If Putin then decides to attack Poland, what will the rest of NATO do?

Probably the same since 2014. Harsh words and open palms waiting for the cash. This is why Poland is building their own military since 2014 because they already know NATO is a scam agreement and wholly unreliable.

Shoresy

The more I look into Poland post-2014, the more I am amazed at all the incredible social changes they did so fast, and not a peep of this on any mainstream news channel. Only dedicated info diggers know a thing about it! They didn't form a committee, they didn't ask for global consensus, they just quietly fucking DID it.

-massively expanded the Polish military to the largest land force in Europe

-rebuilt domestic arms production

-created Territorial Defense Forces

-normalized the idea that every Polish citizen has a role in national survival and to not rely on NATO or the US.


Quietly glorious in my humble opinion.

Shoresy

All this is correct, I am just explaining why South America is vulnerable to this vs Switzerland, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.


What is super interesting is what Poland did in 2014 when it saw Ukraine fuck itself over royally by kicking the eastern legislators out of Kiev. It basically said "Fuck you NATO, we will provide our own security and not rely on you" and "We won't fall into the fractured mess of Ukraine and others in the West."

They made a deliberate decision to not collectivize security and to take on more of a Swiss security model, making them a VERY unlikely target for exploitation from any source.