__________
Another week, another study, used by "socialists" trying to re-establish long-debunked correlation of "average" life longevity to the [lack of] "free and universal / single-payer" and, obviously, the "socialism."
As usual, trying to pick and choose small samples of disparate facts to establish "correlation," let alone causation, fails even slightly more rigorous tests, and usually serves only people trying to convince themselves (time and again, with every new "study") that what they've been told "forever" and sincerely believe is true... or just used to influence younger audience, not well versed in statistics and fallacies.
This study itself immediately debunks the thesis of such "correlation" because there is big difference in longevity between the states, yet obviously, no difference between the "healthcare system" in Massachusetts's, Hawaii, Mississippi, Alabama and other states, since it's the same. So the differences or correlations are in many other variables; e.g., a lot closer to levels of education, wealth and income, diet, demographics and genetics (age, race, etc.), crime and suicides etc., and has nothing to do with the "healthcare system."
en.wikipedia.org - States ranked by median household/per capita income
Much better correlation to average lifespan in states?!
If "universal / single-payer healthcare system" were really cheaper, "true blue" states would jump on it... but apparently it's not the case, since Bernie Sanders' VT, CO and CA couldn't afford it, and there is no objective evidence that it's better anywhere else, e.g., in UK, just because some people in some of "new socialism" countries supposedly "like" their "no bills" system for which they "invisibly" pay in much higher income and sales / GST taxes.
TANSTAAFL!
en.wikipedia.org - Vermont health care reform
www.latimes.com - Single-payer healthcare meets its fate again in the face of California's massive budget deficit - LAT, 2024-05-16
www.vox.com - Colorado single-payer initiative failure - 2017-09-14
www.pacificresearch.org - What's Wrong With Single-Payer? Ask Vermont. - 2025-07-02
|------- Everywhere it's tried, universal health care leads to higher costs for taxpayers.
... Colorado can learn from Vermont - and from its own experience. In 2016, nearly 80% of Colorado voters rejected an amendment to establish universal health coverage through "ColoradoCare." To fund the program ... "state would have had to raise taxes, cut services, raise copayments, lower health care provider payments, or some combination of all to cover the difference." -------|
|-------... cost of [Colorado] Amendment 69 was estimated at $36 billion per year, more than the entire state budget. ... "An insurance card doesn't necessarily guarantee you access either" -------|
"Socialism" for many has bizarrely become a shorthand for fuzzy whatever is "not capitalism"... just as "America First" is a slogan / shorthand for fuzzy whatever MAGA's grand poohbah says is "not woke"... or "6-7!" ?
Or just like Trump who, once convinced of something, keeps repeating it despite the facts showing exactly the opposite.
No worries, another study will come along soon, for same people to mangle selective statistics to "prove" whatever they believe.
__________
__________
Musk's SpaceX in merger talks with xAI
xAI is also in talks with Tesla, and Tesla is also in talks with SpaceX about possible mergers and/or SpaceX IPO before/after merger with xAI - depending on who is doing pre-IPO valuation analysis that would yield maximum capitalization.
This self-dealing is similar to Musk making "sweetheart deal" acquisition of near-bankrupt SolarCity, partly-owned and run by his cousins, by publicly-owned Tesla, and renaming it Tesla Energy.
Remember the much talked about bloated valuation - and Musk's debt - of eX-Twitter that was merged into xAI? When Musk merged eX-Twitter into xAI in March of last year, he valued it at $33B on balance sheet of xAI (when money-losing X was estimated at still high $8B-$9B).
Guess who will "participate in ownership" of this debt after xAI eventually goes public, in whichever merged formed it will be? Yep - the shareholders of new Musk-controlled public entity. And that $45B ($33B of estimated "goodwill" value + $12B in Twitter debt) on xAI balance sheet will provide nice multi-year tax write-offs to acquiring/surviving merger entity.
That's why the Twitter bonds - that were sold to PE institutions by banks which loaned Musk money - went for very solid 97% of nominal value, and not 10% as some "analysts" here were hoping. Whoever bought them understood that Twitter was not going to be kept stand-alone; rather a leveraged stage 1 eventually merged into one of the public entities, with nearly assured payout.
Hiding and amortizing weak spots in bigger, seemingly financially stronger entities is the art of financial engineering.
Just like some subprime and/or substandard mortgages were packaged into AAA-rated MBS and CDOs and sold to public for years before financial meltdown and GFC of 2008.
Similarly, Trump unloaded his personal loans on several casinos when he made them public, one just a year before it went BK - that's how he, once again, avoided what should have been a personal bankruptcy - by making it "not personal - strictly business."
__________