I'm pretty sure that most people that work in hospital billing have little notion of how terrible a process it is. They just think they are doing the best they can given the situation (nevermind that the institutions have created the situation). For example, I was discussing a bill with someone (I was complaining that it seemed high) and their unimpeachable logic was that I shouldn't care about how much it was because it had already been applied to my deductible. Yes, they actually said something along those lines.
Mostly, I think the way to fix broken institutions is to dismantle them.
And then what?
Because a new institution is going to sprout up in its place. Maybe some aspects (e.g., medical billing) will be improved. But there will still be a new institution and it will still have lots of bugs, some new and some old.
Your suggestion is like noticing that a few modules of an XX MLOC code base suck and then deciding to rewrite the entire code base.
You might decrease the code base. But probably not by an order of magnitude.
You might fix some bugs. But you'll sure as hell introduce new ones, too.
You're definitely going to end up spending a shitload of money.
And eventually, assuming your software is actually used by real people, your beautiful new code base will become a cluster fuck for the same reason the old one did.
In most cases, the wise move is to actually identify the problems and solve those, leaving in place the solid components that actually work well.
Just like the XX MLOC codebase, institutions aren't the problem; rather, they are the inevitability. You won't get rid of them by throwing away the ones we have now, and in most cases you're better off fixing bugs than starting anew.
Discarding and replacing those can be expected to have different dynamics than rewriting functions.
(the processes that an institution formalizes are certainly more relatable to code)
I mean, the cynics are correct, but they're also more than a little responsible for perpetuating that system by setting the bar so low.
[The] power of accurate observation ... is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
That's true, but most of it is, and I don't think that's entirely accidental. Many cynics are cynics because society expects them to be. People mistrust the government before they really even understand what it is.
>It's just that when a population is trained to recognize and dismiss cynics that is frequently what they become.
I would argue the population has been trained to be cynical in order to disengage them from politics, lead them to expect nothing from the system, and make them more easily manipulated. It does seem evident that there is a feedback loop between the cynicism of voters and politics.
I actually agree. However, I think the discussions we need to be having are ultimately cynical. We need to be able to tolerate it. The opinion you've just expressed is terribly cynical and that doesn't undermine it's legitimacy.