james014Aura wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: My point right now is that you aren't citing anything. By not citing anything, you are proving me right. So me not citing anything makes it a lack of proof for the position I'm arguing, but at the same time these lack of citations is (positively) proving the metalhead's argument right?
WTF philosophy class do you learn that in? "Philosphy and Psilocybin"?
:D
Leaving aside the insult...
1) You do not provide citations, 2) so you have nothing to back up your claims, which 3) are extraordinary.
As per Russel's Teapot and all other valid forms of burden of proof, 4) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 5) You have not provided this.
More importantly, 6) You have REPEATEDLY failed to provide evidence. A single instance, even three, could just be you forgetting, if 7) they didn't call you out on not providing sources/evidence/citations. You have failed to provide sources and evidence to back your claims so often that it's no longer a correctible absence of evidence for your claims. It's become evidence of absence, because 8) Everyone else has provided things to back up their claims, and asked you for sources, which you have not provided.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Both sides have made said claims.
You have repeatedly been asked for sources (6 and 7), when you failed to back your claims (1, 5), meaning your words have nothing supporting them (2, 4). Just your own opinion, repeated again and again.
The others have, in both link and summary format (8)
Your claims are thus far 100% unsupported. Meanwhile, their claims ARE supported, and contradict yours.
Claims + Evidence is FAR superior to Claims + No evidence.
Also, you previously claimed that "By not citing anything, you are proving me right." is a double negative. It isn't. There is precisely ONE negative in that. Doubles require TWO, by definition.
THEN, you Strawmanned my complaint about that as saying that the statement was objectively right and moved the goalposts, adding in an ad hominin against me. I'm making that claim NOW, but I wasn't, then.
So, things you have done:
1) claims with no sources or backing
2) moving the goalpost fallacy
3) ad hominin fallacy. Possibly Tu Quoque instead.
4) strawman fallacy
5) ignoring the burden of proof that's on you
5a) both a fallacy, and
5b) when OTHERS do obey the burden of proof.
Under 1-5a, your arguments are 100% INVALID. Wrong? Well, under fallacy fallacy, I can't say for certain. However, per 5b, the others have provided solid evidence, so while what I've looked at thus far isn't 100% conclusive, their evidence is sufficiently vast that it's worth treating them as almost certainly correct. Two things.
1) I was conversing with Mark Hoover, so my numbers are in relation to his numbers, not some hypothetical the metalhead came up with.
2) My over-arching point is government has a hard time doing anything large scale and long term. Even though, unlike in much of Europe, the feds don't control every aspect of healthcare their fingers are all through the pie and - for the price - American healthcare is a total ######## ####! Even getting solid numbers is a little squishy. Why is that? Could it be because the feds are involved?
Instead of joining in with the others and devolving the conversation, be an adult and pick up the points I made (I'll repeat them momentarily) and show me how they are wrong.
So how much are the costs for all the doctor visits associated with the mismanagement of Big Pharma? The costs incurred before, during and after a prescription to make sure the prescribed poison is working.
So how much are the costs for all the associated lab costs involved in Big Pharma?
So how much are the costs for all the associated consulting fees for reading/presenting the lab results?
So how much are the costs for all the not-so-occasional side effects and drug interactions that result in more doctor visits and the occasional hospitalization?
And how much are the costs for researching, making and marketing all the ###### ##### drugs in the first place (especially the ones that do way more harm than good - Oxytoncin anyone? Xanax anyone?)?
Forget whether I'm trying to close a 3% gap or a 5% gap.
Do you think the management of a GND will go any better?
And remember for a +1.5° year 2100 we need the GND (whichever version gets implemented) to work unprecedentedly well and we need as many as 100 other governments to follow suit with the same efficiency.
Up thread the threat of lawsuits was dismissed with 'and those things got built anyway' didn't they? Sure but at what additional cost? And sure but at what additional delay?
These things global humanity can't afford, assuming the science is about right. So wouldn't it be better to move forward with projects that have a little more broad buy-in than the GND? Something that can get underway now and build from there. Isn't that a better way forward?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
My numbers aren't hypothetical. I have cited reputable sources for all of them.
Maybe YOUR numbers are hypothetical. And if we want to hypothetically take them seriously, I'm fine with that.
Quarky, thanks for the AP article and other media you've submitted to help me along! We started eating organics a while ago and just as a life choice I've been trying to cut down meat and dairy b/c, y'know... age!
Something you allude to above: Quark Blast wrote: My over-arching point is government has a hard time doing anything large scale and long term. Even though, unlike in much of Europe, the feds don't control every aspect of healthcare their fingers are all through the pie and - for the price - American healthcare is a total ######## ####! Even getting solid numbers is a little squishy. Why is that? Could it be because the feds are involved? Ironically, the article I cited in my original questions suggests that sometimes even doctors and hospitals don't know all the associated costs to patients but this isn't because of government intervention. It actually comes from the purposely convoluted medical insurance industry. Costs are obscured in order to make it more difficult for consumers to shop around.
Say what you will about the efficacy of the ACA but one thing it opened the door to was revealing surprise medical billing. The current administration has tried to push for dismantling the ACA but actually calls for enhancing the transparency around these costs. Now that a new guy is coming on board who supposedly wants to shore up/strengthen the ACA, I can only imagine that transparency efforts will become even more robust.
So in other words, the government wants MORE costs avail to the consumers, not less.
Quark Blast wrote: Do you think the management of a GND will go any better? I think this needed another response.
You've been analyzing the US healthcare system and using it as proof the government shouldn't be in charge of it. The problem here is that we don't have "a healthcare system" here in the US. We have thousands of health care systems. Medicaid and Medicare aren't really healthcare systems, they're ways of paying for access to healthcare systems. The US government does run a couple of healthcare systems, several for active duty military (I know Army and Navy are separate, don't know about the Air Force or Coastguard, though the Marines are part of the Navy for this), and of course the Veteran's Administration. The VA hospital system is the single largest and only national system in the country.
The VA has massively improved over the past 30 years. It was a really bad system in the 80's, but it has been massively improved since then. While there are still problems... there are problems in private healthcare as well... the VA system is actually fairly close to an ideal for efficiency right now.(Gao, et al). Relevant to your current point, the VA has reduced opioid prescription by 64%. (VA.gov) The VA has already taken massive steps to address the problem you've identified in the broader US. In this case, the government is doing far better than the private sector. The private sector has only seen a decrease of 35% over the same period of time. (cdc.gov) The government has been nearly twice as effective as the private sector in reducing the opioid problem.
So, if we use the opioid problem as a metric to decide whether we should use a governmental or private sector approach, then the evidence tells us that the government would be far more effective.
This is part is not based on evidence, but is only an anecdote, so I did not include it above. I just wanted to share it. I am a disabled vet. I use the VA healthcare system. Have all of my interactions been great? No. Many of them have been good though. When I go in for care, I don't have to pay for anything. Ever. At all. When I first started using it I had to pay $5 per prescription per month. Even that's gone now, and I just get my prescriptions. My dad is also a vet, and he also uses the VA hospital, and it has saved his life. They also sent him to the Mayo Clinic when a specialist was required for cancer surgery, so he still had access to one of the best surgeons in the country. Lastly, my mother was a social worker at the VA hospital. My family has experience on both sides of the VA system as patients and a provider. We trust it. We know it isn't perfect.
I'm often mystified that there isn't rioting in the streets demanding access to a similar system like the VA. Seriously, the rest of you should be so pissed off. Just imagine never having to worry about how you're going to pay for treatment ever again. I do not get why people put up with the private insurance model.
Irontruth wrote: I'm often mystified that there isn't rioting in the streets demanding access to a similar system like the VA. Seriously, the rest of you should be so pissed off. Just imagine never having to worry about how you're going to pay for treatment ever again. I do not get why people put up with the private insurance model. A view shared by just about everybody in the industrialized world who is NOT American.
Unfortunately, the propaganda arm of the US Health system is mighty indeed :-(.
A quick glance has been unable to find any comparisons of Canadian care and the VA care. Do you happen to be aware of any good comparisons of the VA system and other systems?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Quarky, thanks for the AP article and other media you've submitted to help me along! We started eating organics a while ago and just as a life choice I've been trying to cut down meat and dairy b/c, y'know... age! You're quite welcome. Fortunately the side effects of such a change are all mostly positive (tho generally more expensive but stay away from the botique organic sellers and it's not that much more).
Irontruth wrote: I think this needed another response....
So, if we use the opioid problem as a metric to decide whether we should use a governmental or private sector approach, then the evidence tells us that the government would be far more effective.
Sure, let government policy, regulation and enforcement (er... lack thereof) have free reign for 30 years and then get the government involved to clean up the mess. Excellent plan! It's worked for the opioid crisis (eventually), we can do the same for the climate crisis (eventually).
:D
But in regards to the post it references, it's warranted.
Right?
What's the point of using 30 years of government failure, and then partial success, as a model for what needs to be done now with no-to-minimal error?
The modern VA was established in June of 1788. While it's undergone changes and upgrades, it's never been fully defunded/dismantled, so it has evolved out of its failures. I'd say that's evidence that it can serve as an example of how you fail at one aspect of government HC for 30 years, then fix it.
Quark Blast wrote: Sure, let government policy, regulation and enforcement (er... lack thereof) have free reign for 30 years and then get the government involved to clean up the mess. Wait, what?
Quark Blast wrote: Sure, let government policy, regulation and enforcement (er... lack thereof) have free reign for 30 years and then get the government involved to clean up the mess. So, there was no government regulation and enforcement, the market subsequently failed, and that market failure ... is the governments fault.
And a sign that we need less government.
That is just ... breathtaking logic.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The modern VA was established in June of 1788. While it's undergone changes and upgrades, it's never been fully defunded/dismantled, so it has evolved out of its failures. I'd say that's evidence that it can serve as an example of how you fail at one aspect of government HC for 30 years, then fix it. But we don't have 30 years to wait before fixing the climate crisis. Hence the rub with promoting a GND of some sort. And don't forget it needs to run correctly right out of the gate. And BTW the VA budget is a fraction of even the smallest GND proposals - I have total confidence the feds can handle a project unlike any they've ever run before with a budget unseen this side of the DoD. </sarcasm>
Funny thing is too with the VA reducing opioid prescription more than the private sector. What if the VA was 4x over prescribing and the private sector 1.5x over prescribing? So now the VA still has a ways to go and private sector is about right? What do those numbers mean? Is it somehow ok the VA got it wrong for 30 years in the absence of a profit motive?
Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The modern VA was established in June of 1788. While it's undergone changes and upgrades, it's never been fully defunded/dismantled, so it has evolved out of its failures. I'd say that's evidence that it can serve as an example of how you fail at one aspect of government HC for 30 years, then fix it. But we don't have 30 years to wait before fixing the climate crisis. Hence the rub with promoting a GND of some sort. And don't forget it needs to run correctly right out of the gate. And BTW the VA budget is a fraction of even the smallest GND proposals - I have total confidence the feds can handle a project unlike any they've ever run before with a budget unseen this side of the DoD. </sarcasm> Hey, I'm in agreement here buddy; the rollout of the ACA online exchange crashed the first month it went up. I get that the US fed is not the MOST efficient bod. The alternative is...
Nothing.
At least, not from the federal government. The states aren't going to tackle climate change, not one at a time. Private sector isn't going to do it since there's not enough profit margin currently. This means that we're counting on individual citizens to ALL make sensible, life-altering changes with their buying habits and lifestyle.
Right. And monkeys might fly out of my posterior.
I'm not saying we need to adopt the entire GND. I'm not even saying we have to CALL it the GND. But I AM saying that the federal government is the most expedient way for all 50 nifty United States to get on board with and actively participate in the reduction of emissions and other climate-saving initiatives.
So yeah, if they roll something out today it won't be perfect. Neither was the VA at first, or social security, or the Civil Rights act, or even the US park Service. Every government initiative will have to grow and change and adapt.
Doing nothing is a death sentence. Waiting around for my neighbors to get on board is essentially waiting for Godot. I think SOMETHING is better than nothing, but all of the above is opinion.
You're not exactly wrong but, e.g., depending on which post you read up thread by CB, the market forces are bounding forward with an inexorable preferred solution OR #### ####! we need to implement a GND like yesterday already.
I think the feds do far better when they use carrots over sticks (because the big players have lawyers to get them through the loopholes in the stick-laws) and better when they use carrots over running the program themselves.
I'm also a big advocate incentivizing efficiency. True story: not so long ago one of my friends, who was poor (like whole fam in a single wide trailer poor), cooled their home with a monstrous donated window AC unit. It broke and they were too broke to get it fixed. Someone donated a tiny window AC unit. Their summer electric bill was cut by 50% with the tiny AC unit that was nevertheless more than adequate to cool the home.
The government had nothing to do with that success story. But that is precisely what we need, about 100 million more times and then we can decommission fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nothing because the demand is gone. Meanwhile, quality of life just went up measurably for millions, especially those under the median household income.
How hard is that?
With the upcoming change in American administrations, there's some good news on the horizon.
Irontruth wrote: With the upcoming change in American administrations, there's some good news on the horizon. Yeah, that's a mixed bag there. On the one hand, that is a very bold plan the president elect has. On the other hand, it is still possible that the senate remains in the hands of the opposition party who has already begun making intonations that they will block any "progressive" legislation.
If the senate lands in their hands again, I think what you'll see for the next 2 years is obstructionism followed with hardcore spin blaming the left for being radical. The left, for their part, are already starting an internal power struggle with progressives being blamed for the losses of more moderate legislators.
I WANT the Biden/Harris administration to push their "science first" climate change plan and make it happen, but I just don't have a ton of confidence. Sorry for being such a wet blanket, but I feel like that's where we are right now.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Irontruth wrote: With the upcoming change in American administrations, there's some good news on the horizon. Yeah, that's a mixed bag there. On the one hand, that is a very bold plan the president elect has. On the other hand, it is still possible that the senate remains in the hands of the opposition party who has already begun making intonations that they will block any "progressive" legislation.
If the senate lands in their hands again, I think what you'll see for the next 2 years is obstructionism followed with hardcore spin blaming the left for being radical. The left, for their part, are already starting an internal power struggle with progressives being blamed for the losses of more moderate legislators.
I WANT the Biden/Harris administration to push their "science first" climate change plan and make it happen, but I just don't have a ton of confidence. Sorry for being such a wet blanket, but I feel like that's where we are right now. Did you read the whole article? Or just the headline and lede?
The current administration has used executive orders to change vehicle emissions standards, and it is currently actively blocking California's zero emission standards from being enacted.
Just allowing California to enact that standard will be huge. First, California itself is a very large car market. That means far fewer emissions from cars. Second, California is a very large car market. That means whatever standards are adopted there essentially become national standards because it doesn't make sense to only produce cars for California. If you make cars one way for California, it's easier to just make them that way for the whole US. Kind of like how the Texas Schoolboard controls textbooks for the a significant part of the country.
I agree, he can't pass a GND style bill, but Congress can't stop him from the above. It also means the EPA will start regulating again.
pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Yeah.... I've tried that approach. Quark, you're your own worst enemy. You sometimes do make valid points, you actually do.
But what you refuse to ever do is admit it when you're wrong. You change the goalposts, you ignore arguments, you attack people, you deny that you said what you said, you often refuse to provide evidence
It makes arguing with you extremely frustrating.
I said it above. You're intellectually dishonest.
I know that you see me as another one of your enemies but I'm really not. I actually agree with your points a fair bit, I've even defended you on this thread from time to time. But the WAY that you argue is just atrocious. Dirtypool says it well above, you need to grow up and learn to argue as an adult My most recent attempt at positive contributions to this thread get misrepresentated per usual. I put forth several talking points, not thoughts from others or a 'libertarian think tank', for the purpose of consideration.
"Prove it" is the only polite response I get, drowned out by a sea of lack wit spew.
Instead of joining in with the others and devolving the conversation, show me how they are wrong.
Here are my points again.
So how much are the costs for all the doctor visits associated with the mismanagement of Big Pharma? The costs incurred before, during and after a prescription to make sure the prescribed poison is working.
So how much are the costs for all the associated lab costs involved in Big Pharma?
So how much are the costs for all the associated consulting fees for reading/presenting the lab results?
So how much are the costs for all the not-so-occasional side effects and drug interactions that result in more doctor visits and the occasional hospitalization?
And how much are the costs for researching, making and marketing all the ###### ##### drugs in the first place (especially the ones that do way more harm than good - Oxytoncin anyone? Xanax anyone?)?
I see these points as self-evident. These costs are not tracked by any of the studies my detractors have linked, nor can I find any numbers on this, but these are real costs. Suicide from Oxytocin addiction (not previously mentioned) is a real cost that gets misattributed to a mental health issue.
Now having considered these not so hidden costs, ask yourself the following question:
Do you think the management of a GND will go any better?
GND proposals are multi-trillion dollar ideas put forth with the hubris and enthusiasm that we "know" we're doing the right thing, so full speed ahead.
I literally posted data to use in a discussion about big pharma. You've ignored all of that data and continued to make false assertions.
Irontruth wrote: I literally posted data to use in a discussion about big pharma. You've ignored all of that data and continued to make false assertions. Those links don't discuss the ancillary costs I outlined. Hard to dialog on a null dataset.
Sorry Ironicus Maximus, I zeroed in too hard on the line "Biden could also face tough opposition to his climate goals from opposition lawmakers and his ability to fully implement his climate plan may depend on which party controls a majority in the Senate" from said article.
So executive action can get things rolling. In order to get the money to invest in infrastructure though, the executive needs the legislative. The House controls the money, so even though the left's hold there is slimmer they still have control over that at least. However other bills will have to go through the Senate and, depending on GA in Jan, that could be a losing battle.
This comes back to my central themes though. 1. Executive Orders doing SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, which is kinda what we're currently doing. Also 2. if we as US citizens want this or other administrations to actually commit to initiatives that currently appeal to roughly 70% of us, WE need to get louder than the lobbyists and demand that our elected officials MAKE it happen.
Quark Blast wrote: pauljathome wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Yeah.... I've tried that approach. Quark, you're your own worst enemy. You sometimes do make valid points, you actually do.
But what you refuse to ever do is admit it when you're wrong. You change the goalposts, you ignore arguments, you attack people, you deny that you said what you said, you often refuse to provide evidence
It makes arguing with you extremely frustrating.
I said it above. You're intellectually dishonest.
I know that you see me as another one of your enemies but I'm really not. I actually agree with your points a fair bit, I've even defended you on this thread from time to time. But the WAY that you argue is just atrocious. Dirtypool says it well above, you need to grow up and learn to argue as an adult My most recent attempt at positive contributions to this thread get misrepresentated per usual. While I continue to doubt that you'll accept it as such, my comment above is really intended to be taken as helpful advice.
I'm going to stick to the discussion that we had above as an example since it is the most recent one we've both been involved in.
You posted that governments could not possibly manage efficiently plans that were even 10% as large as the (very bad) estimate of 100 trillion for the GND.
I gave a counter example and asked you to retract your position.
You petulantly refused.
Now, in this case there were several things you could quite reasonably have done.
For example, you could have largely conceded my point and explicitly moved the goalposts with a statement along the lines of
"You may well be right, I really don't know enough about the Canadian situation to comment. I'll change my position to "The American Federal Government is unable to efficiently manage a program even 10% of the GND""
That was probably your best course if you didn't want to continue that discussion.
But if you wanted to continue the discussion you could have argued that the absolute magnitude is important and not the relative magnitude.
Or argued that it took decades for the Canadian Health System to get to the point it is at now and it is unreasonable to to expect the GND to work in the first few years.
But instead you petulantly just ignored me and posted that it was an irrelevant side trek.
"You may well be right, I really don't know enough about the Canadian situation to comment. I'll change my position to "The American Federal Government is unable to efficiently manage a program even 10% of the GND""
is an adult way of conceding a point and moving the discussion forward in a way that you're interested in.
"Speaking of asinine and tangential side treks.
No."
is a childish way of trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
Heck, you could just have NOT responded to my post which would effectively concede my point. Instead, you chose to make a petulant response.
Quark Blast wrote: My most recent attempt at positive contributions to this thread get misrepresentated per usual. I put forth several talking points, not thoughts from others or a 'libertarian think tank', for the purpose of consideration.
"Prove it" is the only polite response I get, drowned out by a sea of lack wit spew.
Instead of joining in with the others and devolving the conversation, show me how they are wrong.
Here are my points again.
So how much are the costs for all the doctor visits associated with the mismanagement of Big Pharma? $1 The costs incurred before, during and after a prescription to make sure the prescribed poison is working.
So how much are the costs for all the associated lab costs involved in Big Pharma? $1
So how much are the costs for all the associated consulting fees for reading/presenting the lab results? $1
So how much are the costs for all the not-so-occasional side effects and drug interactions that result in more doctor visits and the occasional hospitalization? $1
And how much are the costs for researching, making and marketing all the ###### ##### drugs in the first place (especially the ones that do way more harm than good - Oxytoncin anyone? Xanax anyone?)? $1
I see these points as self-evident. These costs are not tracked by any of the studies my detractors have linked, nor can I find any numbers on this, but these are real costs. Suicide from Oxytocin addiction (not previously mentioned) is a real cost that gets misattributed to a mental health issue.
Now having considered these not so hidden costs, ask yourself the following question:
Do you think the management of a GND will go any better?
GND proposals are multi-trillion dollar ideas put forth with the hubris and enthusiasm that we "know" we're doing the right thing, so full speed ahead.
My answers are in bold. That's how much I think they are. You have previously posted you think differently. 2 things
1. Prove me wrong
2. What we THINK doesn't prove our points, only illustrates our OPINIONS
The reality is, we don't HAVE those hidden costs. I would posit, without any evidence to back this up, that there are hidden costs in any health care system that involves private industry and insurance companies. This is my opinion.
The FACTS however are that current VA patients spend nothing out of pocket for their healthcare, likely rolling their own contribution to the administration of that program into theirs and our current taxes. So taxes I already pay go to subsidizing someone else's healthcare, because they served this nation. This is socialized, government-run healthcare and YES, it does have PROBLEMS. These have been well documented over the years.
Just because it's not perfect, that doesn't mean its bad/wrong.
This entire post however feeds back to your original point however of can the fed run/maintain programs. Yes, they can. Not perfectly, but they can. And have. Since the 1780's.
So the GND or other climate legislation is really big and expensive. That means that it would be bigger and more expensive than the current stuff the fed is maintaining. Would that mean bigger and more expensive problems when they screw up? Yes. Would they screw up? Yes.
Passing something and dealing with the fallout from problems however shouldn't be the brick wall that stops us from trying. That is my humble OPINION though.
If we want to keep discussing our opinions not backed up by any cited facts on ancillary costs we make up based on our feelings, that's fine, I'm down for that. But let's not confuse our opinions, our feelings, our thoughts for verifiable facts.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: I literally posted data to use in a discussion about big pharma. You've ignored all of that data and continued to make false assertions. Those links don't discuss the ancillary costs I outlined. Hard to dialog on a null dataset. Post where I provided data on ancillary costs.
Try again.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: I literally posted data to use in a discussion about big pharma. You've ignored all of that data and continued to make false assertions. Those links don't discuss the ancillary costs I outlined. Hard to dialog on a null dataset. Post where I provided data on ancillary costs.
Try again. Now I... kinda feel dumb for pulling numbers out of my rear upthread... sorry IT. :O
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Sorry Ironicus Maximus, I zeroed in too hard on the line "Biden could also face tough opposition to his climate goals from opposition lawmakers and his ability to fully implement his climate plan may depend on which party controls a majority in the Senate" from said article.
So executive action can get things rolling. In order to get the money to invest in infrastructure though, the executive needs the legislative. The House controls the money, so even though the left's hold there is slimmer they still have control over that at least. However other bills will have to go through the Senate and, depending on GA in Jan, that could be a losing battle.
This comes back to my central themes though. 1. Executive Orders doing SOMETHING is better than NOTHING, which is kinda what we're currently doing. Also 2. if we as US citizens want this or other administrations to actually commit to initiatives that currently appeal to roughly 70% of us, WE need to get louder than the lobbyists and demand that our elected officials MAKE it happen.
I get what you are saying and don't necessarily disagree.
However...
A lot of times looking at issues in the US the media (and anyone watching the media) adopts a sort of all-or-nothing view. Except that kind of thinking is clearly wrong on most issues. I am NOT debating these two topics, nor encouraging any sort of debate about them, but rather using a couple of facts about these debates to illustrate a point:
Gun control and abortion.
Both issues are "settled" at the federal level, and nationally we often consider there to be a fairly empty debate that elicits no actual change on either issue. But this ignores what is happening on the state and local level for both issues. Activists are getting states to pass laws that affect both issues quite dramatically. The amount of change that is happening is not uniform and it isn't national, so the national media (and people who watch it) repeat the idea that nothing is happening in either area. They describe a narrative in which nothing is changing. Except this isn't true. Things are changing constantly.
States cannot regulate industries nationally, but if enough states adopt policies to regulate within those states, it will have the effect of national policy. If the US Senate refuses to do anything, than we find ways to do it without them.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: I literally posted data to use in a discussion about big pharma. You've ignored all of that data and continued to make false assertions. Those links don't discuss the ancillary costs I outlined. Hard to dialog on a null dataset. Post where I provided data on ancillary costs.
Try again. Now I... kinda feel dumb for pulling numbers out of my rear upthread... sorry IT. :O No problem.
And if QB got off his high horse, we could actually discuss it. I think if the opioid crisis is costing us 1% of our GDP, that's a huge loss, and worthy of calling it a crisis. It's not as big as 5% would be, but it is still something that would improve our ability to deal with any other issue. The fact does remain that it doesn't explain the gap between the US and other similar nations with regards to the spending on healthcare. It explains part of the gap, but not all of it (not even most of it).
The other interesting fact I found above is that the VA has been twice as effective as the rest of the healthcare industry at curbing the effects of opioids.
Irontruth wrote: The other interesting fact I found above is that the VA has been twice as effective as the rest of the healthcare industry at curbing the effects of opioids. Funny thing is too with the VA reducing opioid prescription more than the private sector.
What if the VA was 4x over prescribing and the private sector 1.5x over prescribing?
So now the VA still has a ways to go and private sector is about right?
Is it somehow ok the VA got it wrong for 30 years in the absence of a profit motive?
You're just making up numbers again. Do you have data you want to discuss?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: The other interesting fact I found above is that the VA has been twice as effective as the rest of the healthcare industry at curbing the effects of opioids. Funny thing is too with the VA reducing opioid prescription more than the private sector.
What if the VA was 4x over prescribing and the private sector 1.5x over prescribing?
So now the VA still has a ways to go and private sector is about right?
Is it somehow ok the VA got it wrong for 30 years in the absence of a profit motive? "What if I make some numbers up that would prove you wrong if they were true?"
QB - are you doing okay? You seem much more off the rails than normal.
Or is just that there's more people interacting here than usual, so it's more obvious?
Edit: Also, Taiwan? Smaller country, but that's still a government health care system. Pointing how one government system is better than another isn't a good argument for government systems always being bad.
Quark Blast wrote: In fact, let's talk about Germany since FR and SE are forbidden fodder through December.
Supposedly they're managing the Coronavirus by science! In May/June people were bludgeoning me with how the feds stateside ought to be following their example. How's the German model working out now?
A lot better than the American model.
Whichever metric you want to use the US is doing worse
|
