I think a fundamental problem comes from the assumptiom that "the government should take care of it"

You have The State, which organizes a city according to their own framework, optimizing for things they care about while the things they aren't measuring are invisible to them. The State creates grid cities to make it easy for "outsiders" to navigate and intervene, which by design, creates opportunities for bad actors to navigate and extract resources they need.

"Wow, this place is overrun by CRimiNalz!! 😱 What do we need to do? We need to put more restrictions on the city to stop them! But where does it happen? We need to figure that out as well! We need monitors where we see the BAD behavior and stop it before it gets to our neighborhoods! Wow, can't you see?! We have so much work to do, and we need more funding!"

You have The State operating its own framework, imposing rules upon a city that they aren't a part of, and when they observe behavior that goes against their ideals, they impose their framework harder. They're able to do so through leveraging the authority and power they have.

What happens then, to those at these margins? Society itself then assumes that the mentally ill, sick, and violent are the responsibility of The State, failing to recognize them as neighbors. The State also assumes this responsibility, to the point where individuals taking matters into their own hands are punished:

- you have people trying to feed the poor getting fined

- self defense being criminalized

- doctors prohibited from giving advice that contradicts authorative medical knowledge

This doesn't negate the purpose of a healthcare system, or any other centralizing system, but rather points to the fallacy that order is best managed from some top-down outside perspective that fails to recognize the specific lived experiences of the individuals navigating said systems day to day.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Even the doorbells watch you walk by on the sidewalk, in America. That's actually illegal here, for data privacy reasons.

You have no experience of a public healthcare system. Do you? 😀

It is funny because you are trying to imagine something that is the established rule. The state takes care of some basic stuff for the citizens since it collects taxes. That is what this is all about. Having the ability as a citizen to go to a hospital or being able to receive education for fucking free is basic stuff. It is the normal...

Its a hyperbolic argument, which derives from an archtype we see as a result of systemic failures. Again, i'm not negating the systems of healthcare or centralization itself. I'm not reimagining anything, I'm stating observations verbosely "to the room" to lay out my stance. My argument is not "we need better healthcare systems", if "better healthcare systems" means more organizers at the top placing more rules and more beauracratic systems to enforce said rules.

We need more individuals at the low level navigating the intricacies of the situation. We also need the organizers at the top to be receptive of these local needs. If it was the norm we wouldn't be seeing such disparities of violence and homelessness that already exist.

In practice, the American health system is larger, more beauracratic and more expensive than any of ours.

I think it's also fair to say we're a significantly less established country, span over a very large landmass. It's quite expensive to do a lot over here in comparison, regardless of how much red tape is involved, which is a lot. I still don't think these are fair arguments though. I can't imagine how cheap it would be to live where yall are at where a majority of your infrastructure has already been built for centuries. Like where is the expense?

Germany was a wasteland after two world wars, and Eastern Europe was Soviet.

Our infrastructure is newer, not older.

I don't know if this is the best video i could pick, but it is from a guy that used to be a marine in USA army. And he is saying something

https://youtube.com/watch?v=VDWRzxf0g1g&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD

Youtube blocks me, so i'll take your word for it.

Just keep in mind that the state cannot cover everything or give often the best personalised solutions, thus the private sector and initiative can fill some or many gaps. I guess the rules you are talking about, are the rules that the state in USA tries to apply in the healthcare system in USA for reasons i have no idea about. I have heard something like that before. I don't know what it is all about, but it is specifically related to USA.

In general you go to a public healthcare facility,hospital or else, and you receive a satisfying treatment according to established medical practises. You want something more or something different and you have the money to support it? You go to the private sector. That's it...