BasedCode

Do people really believe that private browser modes were intended to protect them from tracking?

I thought it was pretty clear that the intention was to hide history activity from users of the same computer.

Isn't it just the 300k holders of British overseas passports?

If it's possible to fit that electronic hardware on something the size of a credit card how does it compare to what is used for that purpose in a real orbital rocket other than redundacy features?

So then what are the friction points of the Singaporean healthcare model that prevents other countries from adopting it?

If it were a Bill up for a vote by politicians in the US then what issues would they have with it?

Also comparing healthcare costs of Germany, Netherlands, and Switzerland with the UK from the links I posted earlier clearly shows that socialised healthcare is more efficient.

The per capita cost in Germany ia 32% higher than the UK, Netherlands it is 28% higher, and in Switzerland it is a whopping 88% higher compared to the UK.

Even France and Greece which are more socialist than the UK and both also have national insurance schemes are much better value than their private counterparts.

Perhaps but then you also have to consider that Singapore is such an outlier that maybe comparing with them is overlooking what universal healthcare system is more likely to really be possible to politically implement.

Chasing that vision of efficency that Singapore shines a light on likely only serves to distract from other universal systems that are more commonly provided that are more realistically achievable.

Singapore is so far off the scale close to Hong Kong that it suggests they have political, social, geographical conditions that can not be replicated.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Ultimately the problem with a private healthcare system is there is no incentive to provide appropriate affordable healthcare and every incentive to divide, marginalize, and monopolize markets in the aim of driving down competition and driving up profits.

Now that the US healthcare industry has grown so rich and powerful it can lobby and win against any serious political efforts to either increase market competition or socialise healthcare. I.don't. Know how you could politically fix a system that is essentially "every man for himself" the incentive for corruption is far too high when payouts equal political power.

I doubt the US is subsidizing medical research as much as you'd think. The Pharmaceutical industry for example is very profitable compared to other industries. A socialised healthcare service would enable more competitive prices eating into industry profits for these products due to market scale like we see in the UK due to the buying power of the NHS.

"Among the largest 25 companies, annual average profit margin fluctuated between 15 and 20 percent. For comparison, the annual average profit margin across non-drug companies among the largest 500 globally fluctuated between 4 and 9 percent."

https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/gao-18-40

>"Average life expectancy is a really flawed metric to measure the effectiveness of healthcare systems, because there are a ton of non-healthcare related confounding variables that impact average life expectancy. Anyone that dies early brings down the average life expectancy, and that includes suicides, homicides, drug overdoses, and car accidents. The US has more traffic fatalities per capita than any other Western European nation. The US has more opioid deaths per capita than any other Western European nation. The US has more gun-deaths per capita than any other Western European nation. While each of those problems have their own political causes...none of them have much to do with the underlying healthcare system, so using it as a metric to measure the quality of the healthcare system in question is ill-advised."

A socialised healthcare system forces government and the healthcare service to write and maintain policies that consider the health of the nation. Where as a private insurance based service doesn't.

The US opoid crisis is a perfect example of this. Many of those addicts in the US moved on from prescription opoids that they had been prescribed unnecessarily to streets heroin because there was little concern of the wider public health implications. In the UK getting a prescription for addictive strength opoid pain killers has long been near impossible because the healthcare system has to be careful not to create another problem in trying to fix the first one because it's their responsibility to fix it which also means Doctors are not motivated to meet the patients wants (e.g pain free) and only fulfil their healthcare needs. This is why the UK didn't go through the same crisis

So I say that life expectancy is a good measure of healthcare systems because it forces policy makers at all levels to consider the wider impact of public policy on public health.

I get the impression you're idealising the free market. The numbers[1][2] speak for themselves in proving that universal healthcare is the most affordable way to provide good healthcare.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_h...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_ex...

In the UK the NHS (2016) per capita cost was $4,192 (PPP) and in the US the per capita cost was $9,892 (PPP). The OECD life expectancy average for the same year in the UK was 81.2 in the US it was 78.6. Comparable healthcare outcomes for vastly different costs.

I don't know how the politics of healthcare and lobbying differ between the UK and the US but whatever they are the numbers show that Universal healthcare is better for everyone in spite of your (or really anyone's) arguments against it.