Where have our Conservative members gone?

[Hayabusa Rider]

And a lot of that waste is what keeps the board happy.
All expenses trips to exotic destinations for meetings, lobbying politicians, company expense accounts for wining and dining...

I suggest you look at how bureaucracies actually work. The French are famous for theirs, and the Pentagon, a governmental agency along with the military as a whole?

The problem is a lack of oversight and accountability regardless of origins. For example in the US people are clamoring for a private system or Medicare when in fact either would be a disaster at the moment. We can't even get people who understand simple things like social media and related technology or not close the nation over a wall without a fight. Besides that's a cart before the horse in any event and at this time Obmacare is a stopgap until we have people up to speed on what health care means and what that requires from a system and infrastructure perspective. One thing I've advocated for is a "healthnet", a coordinated system of Watson plus level AI connected to a universal computerized health system and I mean from FL to HI to AK. I could provide a hundred billion dollar reason for it maybe a trillion, but people don't think very deeply about what would be the most complicated construct in US history.

 

[Blackjack200]

One thing I've advocated for is a "healthnet", a coordinated system of Watson plus level AI connected to a universal computerized health system and I mean from FL to HI to AK. I could provide a hundred billion dollar reason for it maybe a trillion, but people don't think very deeply about what would be the most complicated construct in US history.

Healthnet sounds like a villain from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. I'd rather just go Medicare For All, cover everyone, and get on with the $5 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Healthnet sounds like a villain from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. I'd rather just go Medicare For All, cover everyone, and get on with the $5 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders

Make sure you click your heels three times.

 

[Jhhnn]

Where in the world did you read that?

Under problems & criticisms in your Wiki link.

 

[Blackjack200]

Make sure you click your heels three times.

Yes, I know. The universal coverage that every other first world nation provides its citizens is nothing but a pipe dream. Thank you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, I know. The universal coverage that every other first world nation provides its citizens is nothing but a pipe dream. Thank you.

American exceptionalism!

 

[mikeymikec]

No. Try to talk about race and IQ and see how far that gets you. Talk about Gender not being 100% a social construct. Talk about the wage gap.

All have data, but, none of it matters. Some topics are taboo.

Since someone attempting to make an argument linking race and IQ is invariably as part of an agenda to disparage non-white races and IQ is a flawed method of determining one's intelligence as it is a test of a set of limited skill ranges and how well they've been acquired, which is as much a testament to the quality of a person's education as it is to how they've responded to those attempts to educate them (and obviously quality of education has never been equal in any modern society), it's an utterly bunk argument.

Gender not being 100% a social construct - arguments on this topic usually result in proponents of it being a social construct posting respectable sources and then being ignored. For example, every single time I've posted the World Health Organisation's position on gender, the naysayers always ignore it.

The wage gap - this argument almost invariably is a case of both sides quoting semi-conflicting statistics from varying degrees of respectable sources and coming down to naysayers saying that women shouldn't get equal pay because they might get pregnant someday. IMO this is an utterly bunk argument and should surely apply to men as well since paternity leave is a perfectly normal thing. I'm not sure what's "taboo" argument this topic.

 

[realibrad]

Under problems & criticisms in your Wiki link.

Do you understand how public services work?

 

[WelshBloke]

I suggest you look at how bureaucracies actually work. The French are famous for theirs, and the Pentagon, a governmental agency along with the military as a whole?

I work in one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world, the NHS.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, I know. The universal coverage that every other first world nation provides its citizens is nothing but a pipe dream. Thank you.

And that appears to be the only think you think you know. Well how about this. The military will now be efficient.

Both things fixed.

It's not that a universal system isn't desireable, it is, but arguably so was going to the Moon. How would that have worked out in 1945? Probably not well. There's a lot of things which NEED to be done. Anyone can make health care cheaper, but cheaper and better? That requires understanding and thought you seem to wish to avoid.

How's that Wall or budget working out?

 

[realibrad]

Since someone attempting to make an argument linking race and IQ is invariably as part of an agenda to disparage non-white races and IQ is a flawed method of determining one's intelligence as it is a test of a set of limited skill ranges and how well they've been acquired, which is as much a testament to the quality of a person's education as it is to how they've responded to those attempts to educate them (and obviously quality of education has never been equal in any modern society), it's an utterly bunk argument.

Gender not being 100% a social construct - arguments on this topic usually result in proponents of it being a social construct posting respectable sources and then being ignored. For example, every single time I've posted the World Health Organisation's position on gender, the naysayers always ignore it.

The wage gap - this argument almost invariably is a case of both sides quoting semi-conflicting statistics from varying degrees of respectable sources and coming down to naysayers saying that women shouldn't get equal pay because they might get pregnant someday. IMO this is an utterly bunk argument and should surely apply to men as well since paternity leave is a perfectly normal thing. I'm not sure what's "taboo" argument this topic.

Calling IQ a flawed method of measuring intelligence is equal to calling the theory of gravity flawed because it breaks down on the fringes and is not 100% accurate. Its silly. IQ can make predictions that can be tested and verified. It works very well.

Looking at IQ and race does not establish a biological link inherently, but, could be a good way of seeing what groups are falling behind and need more help. So no, not always is it about disparaging non whites. Your stance is one of taboo.


Thats because most disagree with the WHO on this.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...erence-vs-gender-difference-oh-im-so-confused

The idea that Sex is biological, and gender is socially constructed ignores the research on this. Its really as simple as giving a female hormones and seeing how it changes their personalities. Turns out, give women testosterone and they usually start to develop personality traits that fit in the male group.

ask @interchange if its 100% social and he will tell you something to the effect that trying to look at it as an either or is flawed.

Again, you have to ignore the data to have your stance.

As for the gender pay gap, anyone that says women should get paid less because they might have kids is stupid. The reality is that its mainly a function of time and experience. Its why women often make more than the average male in may sectors until they have kids. Once they have kids they drop out of the labor market and lose experience and or have less time. That is why when you compare women that have not had kids where the factors are equalized, they are just about equal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I work in one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world, the NHS.

I know. That would be a trifle compared to the US. What would your system look like between Trump, McConnell, and our others made it? Do you realize that our complex system (if it can be called that) is based on standards is based on Medicare, and I mean how the nuts and bolts of private insurers? Certainly there are variations but government mandates ill thought out don't help. Our privacy act took years to do get through, cost money, not saved, and was so poorly written that it wasn't until 11:59 PM on the implementation clock that it was realized that parents couldn't legally be given information on their minor children? You take your kid in for a procedure and you are legally in the dark. Want to drive a practitioner nuts here? Say "prior authorization".

So sure we could do things but the immense complexity and consequences are beyond the understanding of those who would undertake them. Again I suggest a simple thing to consider, Congress and the internet. Dead simple, but completely lost. I have suggestions, but leaping towards words without understanding is merely politics elevated to a religion.

 

[Blackjack200]

And that appears to be the only think you think you know. Well how about this. The military will now be efficient.

Both things fixed.

It's not that a universal system isn't desireable, it is, but arguably so was going to the Moon. How would that have worked out in 1945? Probably not well. There's a lot of things which NEED to be done. Anyone can make health care cheaper, but cheaper and better? That requires understanding and thought you seem to wish to avoid.

How's that Wall or budget working out?

Public services (Medicare, Medicaid, and others) already represent 60% of health care expenditures. You're saying that expanding that to the other 40% is a moon shot?

 

[Blackjack200]

I know. That would be a trifle compared to the US. What would your system look like between Trump, McConnell, and our others made it?

Theresa May is every bit the buffoon Trump is.

 

[sdifox]

I would imagine public transport is publicly owned

To be fair though, just because that is the way it is, does not mean that is the way it ought to be. If you are going to have it public, it requires a watchful eye to prevent waste. I would bet most of those systems in Europe have some controversy about things like quality, waste, upkeep ect.

Public transportation can be contracted to private company.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Public services (Medicare, Medicaid, and others) already represent 60% of health care expenditures. You're saying that expanding that to the other 40% is a moon shot?

If it were that simple sure. What you are going to be doing is replacing, indeed creating, a new health care system. You don't say "Congrats, you have to follow these rules and take this payment" and walk away and not expect things to collapse. In fact you can count on it. So everything that goes into medicine needs to be revamped to make a better system and then we can talk about funding.

Let's have a test. Explain why having a nationwide computer system with next gen AI would be beneficial beyond record keeping? What would it do for the patient's health? For the advancement of medicine in general? Treatment? Better outcomes?

Easy peasy. I talking a fundamental systemic change of incalculable benefit.
It would be a means to make universal coverage far more realizable than installing an inferior and obsolete system that becomes entrenched and perpetual in any real real world.

You have a chance to demonstrate an understanding of something other than the headlines here.

 

[Moonbeam]

I will make no bones about Trump sucking and needing to be impeached. If you would like, I can lay out arguments for it.

As for the rest of the stuff, I don't agree with that attitude and find it disturbing how readily people can call out that divisive stance and interpersonal nastiness in Trump without recognizing it within themselves. Dehumanization is wrong independent of any moral, factual, financial, intellectual, or other advantage someone may have over someone else.

I like what you say here and I agree with you that dehumanization is wrong, but I think I do recognize Trump within me. It seems to me I have the same urge as he does to put people down who disagree or oppose me. So here I am utterly repelled and disgusted by Trump and just like him wishing I were not. I have not personally put this conflict to rest which means I have to live with it and the only way I can find to manage that is to not take myself too seriously noting that's exactly what I do (take myself too seriously). To be or not to be, if that's the question I just don't understand it. I guess this interpersonal nastiness as you describe it makes me a little sad. There was a time when I was wide wide open and didn't know how to play that game and then I learned well or so it seems to me.

Anyway, I find your words touching and generative of a longing for something better.

 

[realibrad]

Public transportation can be contracted to private company.

And it would still be publicly. Just because you pay people to do things for you, does not mean you do not own the company.

 

[sdifox]

And it would still be publicly. Just because you pay people to do things for you, does not mean you do not own the company.

Err that was the point I was making?

 

[realibrad]

I like what you say here and I agree with you that dehumanization is wrong, but I think I do recognize Trump within me. It seems to me I have the same urge as he does to put people down who disagree or oppose me. So here I am utterly repelled and disgusted by Trump and just like him wishing I were not. I have not personally put this conflict to rest which means I have to live with it and the only way I can find to manage that is to not take myself too seriously noting that's exactly what I do (take myself too seriously). To be or not to be, if that's the question I just don't understand it. I guess this interpersonal nastiness as you describe it makes me a little sad. There was a time when I was wide wide open and didn't know how to play that game and then I learned well or so it seems to me.

Anyway, I find your words touching and generative of a longing for something better.

This is a shift from what you normally convey about your position. I personally enjoyed this post and wish you would do more of this.

Don't hate Trump. All you will end up doing is hating yourself. Understand where your urges come from, and try your best to deal with it. Be the person you think you should be. Do that, and you will be better than Trump in that regard. Hating him does nothing to change anything. Mold yourself into the tool you think the world needs, instead of being a tool like Trump.

 

[Blackjack200]

If it were that simple sure. What you are going to be doing is replacing, indeed creating, a new health care system. You don't say "Congrats, you have to follow these rules and take this payment" and walk away and not expect things to collapse. In fact you can count on it. So everything that goes into medicine needs to be revamped to make a better system and then we can talk about funding.

Let's have a test. Explain why having a nationwide computer system with next gen AI would be beneficial beyond record keeping? What would it do for the patient's health? For the advancement of medicine in general? Treatment? Better outcomes?

Easy peasy. I talking a fundamental systemic change of incalculable benefit.
It would be a means to make universal coverage far more realizable than installing an inferior and obsolete system that becomes entrenched and perpetual in any real real world.

You have a chance to demonstrate an understanding of something other than the headlines here.

Frankly, I have a hard time even understanding what you're arguing here. "Explain why having a nationwide computer system with next gen AI would be beneficial beyond record keeping?"

I couldn't even tell you what that question means, much less answer it.

I've never seen a straightforward, concise, and persuasive argument for why Medicare for all is unworkable.

 

[mikeymikec]

Calling IQ a flawed method of measuring intelligence is equal to calling the theory of gravity flawed because it breaks down on the fringes and is not 100% accurate. Its silly. IQ can make predictions that can be tested and verified. It works very well.

The theory of gravity has a bearing on pretty much every physical structure ever made, and the notion behind IQ does not have anywhere near such a bearing nor evidence base. IQ may have some useful applications, but to liken the two is laughable.

Looking at IQ and race does not establish a biological link inherently, but, could be a good way of seeing what groups are falling behind and need more help. So no, not always is it about disparaging non whites. Your stance is one of taboo.

My stance is based on experience of the argument being used. It's usually part of a greater disparagement of non-whites by linking them with crime etc., in my experience. I've never seen a proponent of better education use such an argument in the way you describe. Do you agree that what I've experienced is a good reason for a taboo to form around such an argument style?

Thats because most disagree with the WHO on this.

You're inferring a lack of response means that everyone arguing against gender being a social construct actually has a substantial response to make to the WHO page I posted yet chose for not to make it for the reason you specified. This should strike you as illogical and unsubstantiated.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...erence-vs-gender-difference-oh-im-so-confused

The author of this article pulled a straw man argument tactic as his opening statement. I would have thought you'd spotted this.

As for the gender pay gap, anyone that says women should get paid less because they might have kids is stupid. The reality is that its mainly a function of time and experience. Its why women often make more than the average male in may sectors until they have kids. Once they have kids they drop out of the labor market and lose experience and or have less time. That is why when you compare women that have not had kids where the factors are equalized, they are just about equal.

Certainly possible to substantiate with statistics (for example showing salary histories of non-child-bearing mothers vs. child-bearing mothers) and yet strangely I've never seen any statistics that suggest such a correlation.

The attitude that you describe is stupid is rampant in Japan and I've heard it bandied about often enough on this forum, so perhaps you shouldn't be suggesting that such topics are taboo when it's actually the BS arguments and the intolerant attitudes that are the reason why many make such arguments are the problem, resulting in the proponents of such arguments for the reasons I've specified being told to get fucked.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a shift from what you normally convey about your position. I personally enjoyed this post and wish you would do more of this.

OK, and I have no objection doing more of this but remember I was reacting to what I felt was the good quality of somebody else's post and in order to do that there would have to be more post like it to have that response to. The real variable, then, as I see it was that he was taking a position against dehumanization I feel does not receive enough attention or expression and additionally what obstacles I have personally that I see before me being truly rid of that issue myself. I suppose, what I was saying is nothing really new or unique, just a rehashing of 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak'. Another way to say thins is perhaps that I am way way ahead in the development of my abstract understanding of what a proper life might look like than I am in my ability to live actually live it. At the same time, I think that being able to see this is not trivial to its solution even if I personally have no ultimate success.

 

[Jaskalas]

I've never seen a straightforward, concise, and persuasive argument for why Medicare for all is unworkable.

Well, the short of it, as I believe I've gathered, is that our current system is helplessly expensive and wasteful. Therefore he sees no hope in merely changing who pays for it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Well, the short of it, as I believe I've gathered, is that our current system is helplessly expensive and wasteful. Therefore he sees no hope in merely changing who pays for it.

"Our system is a disaster so we definitely shouldn't change it" is a new one I haven't heard before.