ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[David Horn]

(01-30-2017, 01:02 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:The correlation is the between the levels of oversight ... but then, you know that.

No, I didn't, that's why I asked.  Now that you've clarified what you meant, I don't really think "correlation" is the word to use.

Quote:No, they are not really monitored beyond the standard of doing no harm.  Efficacy is never evaluated.

So what?  He was mentioning lithium salts, which are in fact a prescription drug.  He also mentioned nutrition, which would do a damned site more to address heart disease and other issues than the latest statins drug.  Since this is a thread on healthcare reform, what are you actually arguing for?

Quote:Again, it's a difference of degree.  Hairdressers are licensed as capable, and expected to know some basic hygiene.  That's it.

And what of it?  He was, and I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, that the provision of health care services is not fundamentally different from the provision of other goods and services that are rival and excludable.  People need to eat, and yet we don't expect the government to run farms and restaurants (Yes, I know, they do provide subsidies and food stamps, which have their own benefits and drawbacks, but by and large it is run by private companies and farmers).  You may disagree with this position, but it isn't a question of "facts", but of political philosophy (what does the government owe its people, where should we draw the line between cost efficiency and equity, etc.), which is exactly what he said.

Quote:It's not a court room, but it's not a laboratory either.  Preponderance of the evidence is a decent standard for social issues that are not cut-and-dry.  You can disagree if you wish.

Yes, I can if I so choose, and so can he.  That's my point.  It's a political discussion board (in practice at least), and what you are disagreeing about is a political stance, I've seen no dispute over facts or figures, only interpretations and conclusions.  So act accordingly, don't speak out of both sides of your mouth that your opinions are facts, "Well, they're not really facts, but can't we treat them as facts, which you can disagree with you choose, but if you do you're denying facts, and by facts I mean my opinions..."

Just argue over healthcare. 

Quote:And yes, a doctor is not infallible, and a mechanic is held to a standard too.  The two are not equal.  There are three areas where people are unwilling to accept error: life and death, their freedom and liberty, and their money.  So doctors, lawyers and accountants get special scrutiny ... as they should.

When you drive, you're trusting your life and other's to a machine that you assume works properly, and for which you spent a great deal of money.  I am not certain that your distinction really holds.

If you want to argue about how things are regulated RIGHT NOW, then sure.  But, since you two are both unhappy with the status quo, and arguing over how it SHOULD be instead, I'm not really sure why that is relevant.

I think we've beaten this poor horse to death.  We won't agree, so let's call a truce, and get on with other things.