Krugman does a good job reminding progressives that politically viable solutions are better than idealogically perfect ones, especially when it comes to large, polarizing issues like healthcare:
... some progressives — by and large people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries — are already trying to revive one of his signature proposals: expanding Medicare to cover everyone. Some even want to make support for single-payer a litmus test for Democratic candidates.
So it’s time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage — bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare’s cracks — should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn’t the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities.
The key point to understand about universal coverage is that we know a lot about what it takes, because every other wealthy country has it. How do they do it? Actually, lots of different ways.
Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.
Krugman then goes on to point out that the Dutch system works quite well, and is quite similar to the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that improving the A.C.A. is the best path forward. I tend to agree, and hope that my Bernie-supporting friends won't be lured by the temptation of idealogical purity, and will instead embrace the rational, steady progress that comes with compromise and pragmatism. After all, its what made the Obama administration work!
I have nothing against single-payer; it’s what I’d support if we were starting fresh. But we aren’t: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities....
Well said. Well said, indeed.
Great post by Ben Brooks on the iPad post WWDC 2017.
This is a critical point for iPad, where we are about to turn the corner in a very big way.
I think Ben is right. The vast majority of the work that I do these days could be done on an iPad, though I would still rely on an application like Prompt for SSH'ing into servers to write code. The hardware announced at WWDC solves many of my original gripes with the iPad, and a few problems that I didn't even know that I had. The software announced at WWDC is perhaps even more impressive in just how far it pushes the envelope.
Apple perfected iPad hardware at about the same time as they perfected the software for it, and they kind of fucking know it. They are being a tad pompous about it. And they acted the same way with the MacBook Air — “if you think this is a Netbook, oh boy, are you in for a treat.”
For the first time in a long time, I believe the premise that the iPad could be the primary computing device of the next generation of the workforce. The gap is closing, and its closing fast.
Jason Snell discusses the changes Apple is making to its involvement to the podcast world, including some new extensions to the feed format to enable more customization inside their own Podcasts app, which is getting a major revamp is iOS 11. In addition, they're adding in-app analytics (anonymized).
I wonder what this means for JSON Feed, and for Marco Arment's Overcast? I'm a believer in the addition of more metadata to feeds to enable clients and consumers to create better experienes for users.
Great post by Chris Aldrich that echos my own feelings about the potential for an integrated content creation, consumption, and interaction experience for the open web. I've already got a good start on it, since I have a website that supports Webmention and Micropub, and I've created a plugin for Nextcloud News, my feed reader of choice, that enables interactions.
My goal is to completely exit Facebook by the end of 2017 and Twitter shortly thereafter.