>Not to be a doomer, but we have very short attention span.

Yea, fixing this would require decades long effort that is extremely difficult without catalyst. Most of European Health Care came about after periods of extreme difficulty like WWI, Great Depression or WWII. Closest US ever came was Great Depression and unlike Europe, US didn't experience massive hardship after WWII.

Pretty much, yeah. Also, since the system technically works, and produces decent results compared to other countries' results... it's a hard sell to rile up super majority of the population for some change.

> and produces decent results compared to other countries' results

What metrics are you looking at?

I'm not saying it's better! I'm saying it's not that far worse off that it would start an introspective for people to question the current state of affairs. Most people get a decent amount of care, despite all the negative side effects (debt, premiums, uncovered areas due to lack of private hospitals and etc.).

A healthcare CEO was just murdered and the killer is considered a hero. Many are even referring to the dead CEO as a serial killer because of all the preventable deaths he profited from. You're not paying attention if you think people aren't already introspective about healthcare in this country.

The killing could have happened to nearly any CEO and the response would be similar. The issue is of wealth inequality, not strictly healthcare, though it certainly exacerbated the response in this particular case. See the social media response to titan submersible deaths.

People say a lot of things, but given there's no action, it's just... words. It's weird for me to say this, as I consider myself a general optimist. But when it comes to navigating layered political structures that involves trillions of dollars, it's hard to believe that anything of significance will be done.

The assassination itself is one hell of an action, though.

Also, police has already said that they are concerned about the lack of cooperation from the public at large when it comes to success of the manhunt. The people who usually jump onto that kind of stuff are explicitly disengaging.

You can argue that this all does nothing wrt navigating the politics that would actually lead to change. But I think that, at the minimum, it creates some incentive for the people who work with those structures on a day to day basis to do so. If CEOs of healthcare companies are now a socially approved assassination target, apparently, what does it say about healthcare lobbyists?

> we have very short attention span

> News will move on

it's not up to the news (the media and their owners) to tell us what is important...

Maybe yes, maybe no, but people will need something new to talk about, so media will move on.

Unfortunately, i must agree with you. To believe the average person will care or mobilize in a month is naive. We have the attention spans of a toddler and worse we are susceptible to tribal groups which makes change impossible.

cause and effect may be getting conflated. is the media driving people's attention spans, or are people naturally careless?

i'd prefer to think people care about themselves and others, and are otherwise distracted by trivialities to take their mind off of things, sometimes (hopefully less than 49% of the time) to excess

Yeah, you might be totally right! But in this specific topic, it really doesn't matter. That's much bigger topic of discussion. My point was, most likely people will move on and forget about it once a new hot topic comes up. Everything that could've been said online, has already been said. Markets and people have decided multiple times within US policy making that the way it is structured right now is what people want. It would change a huge outrage to start changing the infrastructure around it.

> a huge outrage to start changing the infrastructure around it

that's my "tuesday" :) (infra)

Oh, it's my today :( (infra)

がんばりましょう!