ACA Repeal/Replace: Progressives Face Moral Dilemma

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 10:20 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:In any given conversation between extreme partisans, each side will believe it has facts, while perceiving the other as making partisan assertions.  This dichotomy is the basis of much of the lack of communication and comprehension.  As long as everyone is dead certain that they are right and the other has no basis, the conversation goes in circles.

All the more reason to understand the difference between the two.  If they are actual facts, then they can be demonstrated empirically, you can establish a common basis for discussion, and where your political philosophies diverge on the conclusions to be drawn you will know where and why.  This continued willingness to blur the lines between fact and opinion is not conducive to having an actual discussion, and leads to the sort of group-think, distrust, narrow partisanship, and other ills that you and your ilk regularly wring their hands over.  If you're going to continue doing it, you might as well admit that what you really dislike is people who have the temerity to disagree with you.

If everyone had a scientific world view, the above paragraph would be reasonably valid. Alas, people have a wide variety of world views.

At one point we had a fundamentalist on the board. Truth was obtained through literal interpretation of the bible. Evolutionary biology was garbage, and could be dismissed by ignoring facts. The means for winning any sort of moral or political question was the ability to quote selectively from the Bible better than the other guy.

World views and values define how one perceives and analyzes the world, and what goals one should strive for. Many people do not understand or appreciate the degree to which conflicting world views and values make this world very different than a world where scientific values predominate and decisions are made on fact.

We have had many many visitors here with political values as strong and as blinding as a Fundamentalist's. Mein Kamph or A Communist Manifest can replace the Bible quite well as a basis for determining Truth and perceiving the world. Modern US red and blue values system are better than those, but any political doctrine ought to be questioned.

Facts? I don't believe you were on the old boards when the gun policy question was being debated. Each faction had their own set of facts and would find excuses to dismiss the other folk's facts. You likely observed Warren Dew and Mikebert attempting to establish 'fact' with regard to modern economic policy. In either case, political prejudices trumped the ability to agree on objective fact. We've also discussed climate change, and there is a clear correlation between strong conservative partisan world views and the ability to accept the science. In general, with the possible exception of those truly dedicated to scientific values, people will disregard and be unable to comprehend facts which would force them to rethink their base values. Humans are just like that.

That's where I get frustrated. It is generally easy for someone to recognize that the Fundamentalist or doctrinaire Marxist is locked into an internally consistent but fact deprived version of reality. It is far less easy, even if one accepts that one's world view is more political than scientific, to question base assumptions and verify one's facts.

Anyway, you have a belief that it is possible to agree on fact. In my experience, this is not so. You can disprove my point of view by getting everyone to agree on facts. Lotsa luck. Seriously. It would be a quite worthy endeavor. Alas, I suspect you will end up dealing with humans and getting frustrated.

[SomeGuy]

Well, Bob, if you deny the possibility of agreement on "facts", not much cause for debate, is there?  Unless, of course, you simply enjoy verbally bludgeoning and needling people, which I must admit has its charms. 

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 12:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Well, Bob, if you deny the possibility of agreement on "facts", not much cause for debate, is there?  Unless, of course, you simply enjoy verbally bludgeoning and needling people, which I must admit has its charms. 

Well, my perspective can easily be disproven.  All you have to do is generate an agreement on the facts with respect to several issues like gun policy, climate change and borrow and spend trickle down economics.  Lotsa luck.  Seriously.  Go for it.  

I'd say most people here are advocating for their own world view and values.  If  you can't distinguish between promoting one's values and bludgeoning and needling people, I quite understand.  The two are rather hard to differentiate.  

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 10:20 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 10:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: I try to avoid calling things 'facts' unless they are; I'm also not perfect.  You also make your fair share of assertions.  We're discussing subjects not fully defined, so is this surprising?

But the basis of this argument was Tim Taylor's difficulty discussing issues involving healthcare and treatment with Warren.  Do you want to discuss that?

Then why posture about Warren denying "demonstrable facts", which I don't see him having done, rather than agree with the statement that it is at the root of it a dispute about political philosophy?  Seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, here, rather like the "fake news" subject.

The argument that there is a direct correlation between untested dietary supplements and FDA approved drugs is obviously not true.  The same can be said for the relationship of a customer to a mechanic correlating directly to the relationship between a patient and his doctor.  If it hadn't been detailed earlier (and completely ignored), I might not have been as strident ... nor would Tim.

SomeGuy Wrote:

Bob Butler Wrote:In any given conversation between extreme partisans, each side will believe it has facts, while perceiving the other as making partisan assertions.  This dichotomy is the basis of much of the lack of communication and comprehension.  As long as everyone is dead certain that they are right and the other has no basis, the conversation goes in circles.

All the more reason to understand the difference between the two.  If they are actual facts, then they can be demonstrated empirically, you can establish a common basis for discussion, and where your political philosophies diverge on the conclusions to be drawn you will know where and why.  This continued willingness to blur the lines between fact and opinion is not conducive to having an actual discussion, and leads to the sort of group-think, distrust, narrow partisanship, and other ills that you and your ilk regularly wring their hands over.  If you're going to continue doing it, you might as well admit that what you really dislike is people who have the temerity to disagree with you.

Nothing in the social realm meets the criteria for "proof".  The best we can do is identify a correlation that seems consistent.  I stated the items that triggered the comments, though I didn't restate the entire argument.  Do we have to go there again?

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2017, 01:44 PM)David Horn Wrote: Nothing in the social realm meets the criteria for "proof".  The best we can do is identify a correlation that seems consistent.  I stated the items that triggered the comments, though I didn't restate the entire argument.  Do we have to go there again?

Not really.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Well, my perspective can easily be disproven.  All you have to do is generate an agreement on the facts with respect to several issues like gun policy, climate change and borrow and spend trickle down economics.  Lotsa luck.  Seriously.  Go for it.

I accept!  So, facts, facts, facts...

Guns

The text of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Rifling refers to the practice of manufacturing a helical spiral into the barrel in order to generate spin (and thus gyroscopic stability) in the projectile when the device is fired. 

In Port Arthur, AU in April of 1996, 35 people were killed and another 23 people were wounded in a mass shooting.  Martin Bryant was found to be guilty of this act, and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.  John Howard was Prime Minister of Australia during this period, and the National Firearms Agreement was passed 12 days later.

Climate Change

CO2 is a compound composed of one carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms.  It is gaseous at room temperature.

The Earth's atmosphere contains CO2.

CO2 is one of the products of the combustion of hydrocarbons.  It is also a product of respiration.

Economics

The US Dollar is the official currency of the United States.

The US Government accepts US Dollars as payment for taxes assessed by the same.

The present value of the US Dollar is not fixed to a particular mass of gold, silver, or both, but it has been in the past (not continuously, and not at a fixed rate for all of its history).


Does anyone disagree with these?  Would anyone like to argue that the Port Arthur shooting occurred in October, that the Peso is the official currency of the United States, that the atmosphere does NOT contain CO2?  

These things are facts, what you are quibbling about are interpretations and conclusions that you feel should be drawn from the same.

Quote:I'd say most people here are advocating for their own world view and values.  If  you can't distinguish between promoting one's values and bludgeoning and needling people, I quite understand.  The two are rather hard to differentiate.  

Given the amount of posturing, social signaling, and general what-have you involved, I'd say that most of the time on this board they amount to the same thing.  

[SomeGuy]

Quote:The argument that there is a direct correlation between untested dietary supplements and FDA approved drugs is obviously not true.  The same can be said for the relationship of a customer to a mechanic correlating directly to the relationship between a patient and his doctor.  If it hadn't been detailed earlier (and completely ignored), I might not have been as strident ... nor would Tim.

A correlation in what?  Their efficacy?  Their sales?  Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

An analogy is not a fact.

Quote:Nothing in the social realm meets the criteria for "proof".  The best we can do is identify a correlation that seems consistent.  I stated the items that triggered the comments, though I didn't restate the entire argument.  Do we have to go there again?

I get it, you're not using facts, you're using "facts".  So if somebody disagrees with your "facts", why, that's just the same as if they were claiming that 2+2=5 or that the Earth is flat.  But, when called on it, well, they're not REALLY facts...

Don't do that.

[Mikebert]

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: An analogy is not a fact.

So if one reports a quantitative level for the CO2 in the amtophere or the concentration of a chemical in blood you would not say these are facts?

[SomeGuy]

(01-28-2017, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: An analogy is not a fact.

So if one reports a quantitative level for the CO2 in the amtophere or the concentration of a chemical in blood you would not say these are facts?

I would.  I haven't seen Dave or Bob do this, though.

I mean, this isn't really a response to the statement "an analogy is not a fact", is it?

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 12:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:55 PM):Ragnarök_62 Wrote: My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff.

Yes.  Free lunches, junkets, disease "awareness" grants to increase (mis)diagnoses, lap dances, multimillion dollar speaking fees ... it's a racket:

http://theinfluence.org/you-wont-believe...ill-drugs/

People work for who they get paid by.  Doctors get paid by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, employers, the government - almost everyone except the patient.  That's the problem with third party payer.

I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but how will removing them from the loop prevent capture of our doctors by Big Pharma,  or any other interest with money to burn?  If anything, they probably fight the power, since it costs money to have overpriced pharmaceuticals.

[David Horn]

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The argument that there is a direct correlation between untested dietary supplements and FDA approved drugs is obviously not true.  The same can be said for the relationship of a customer to a mechanic correlating directly to the relationship between a patient and his doctor.  If it hadn't been detailed earlier (and completely ignored), I might not have been as strident ... nor would Tim.

A correlation in what?  Their efficacy?  Their sales?  Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

An analogy is not a fact.

If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence.  But you asked, so I'll answer:

• Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs.  That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control.  None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.
  
• Mechanic v. Physician:  The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable.  That's why they have malpractice insurance.  The same self regulation argument applies here.  A mechanic has none of those.
  

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Nothing in the social realm meets the criteria for "proof".  The best we can do is identify a correlation that seems consistent.  I stated the items that triggered the comments, though I didn't restate the entire argument.  Do we have to go there again?

I get it, you're not using facts, you're using "facts".  So if somebody disagrees with your "facts", why, that's just the same as if they were claiming that 2+2=5 or that the Earth is flat.  But, when called on it, well, they're not REALLY facts...

Don't do that.

In the social sphere, and even in some scientific applications, the preponderance of evidence is fully adequate to claim "proof".  Ask any judge.

[Mikebert]

(01-28-2017, 03:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: An analogy is not a fact.

So if one reports a quantitative level for the CO2 in the amtophere or the concentration of a chemical in blood you would not say these are facts?

I would.  I haven't seen Dave or Bob do this, though.

I mean, this isn't really a response to the statement "an analogy is not a fact", is it?

Yes it is.  Correlations and models are analogies of reality.  For example, what do we measure when air is assayed for CO2 content.  What is measured is an electrical signal, the output of a photomultiplier that converts light intensity to an electrical signal.  According to the Beer-Lambert theory: the negative log of the fraction of light of a particular wavelength that is not absorbed by a colored species (i.e. one that is not transparent at this wavelength) is directly proportional to the molar concentration of the species.

The idea is based on an observation.  If you make up a suspension, it will look almost clear, hazy, translucent, or opaque depending the concentration of the suspension.  This leads to an analogy for what might be going on.  Place the suspension in a square tube (cuvette).  When you shine a light on it, some of the light rays will hit a particle and not pass through the cuvette.  Other rays will miss the particles and pass right though.  The percentage of the rays that get through is the percent transmission or T.  Concentration of the particles is proportional to -logT.  THe log relationship comes from an imagined slicing the mixture into thin layers perpendicular to the light path that is one particle thick.  Each slice either contains a particle (which blocks the light ray) or it doesn't, which transmits the light. Each layer adds another chance at blocking the light.  The effect of additional layers is not additive.  This is because particles in one layer can be behind the location of particles in the layers in front of it, in which case the light was already blocked. If you use a little math it is clear that that the transmission and concentration have a log-dependence on the fraction of the locations of a layer than contain a particle (concentration) and the number of layers contained in the cuvette (path length) which gives the Beer-Lambert Law .

The Beer-Lambert Law is the basis for the utility of spectroscopic analytical methods.  When a theory becomes well accepted it is sometimes called a Law.  If one wishes to analyze something one measures absorbance (-logT) of the species in the sample and established they absence of interference and linearity of method.  One then has a validated assay. The output of a validated assay is a fact.  It is a fact derived from a model/theory based on some analogy obtained by conjecture, from observations.  Basic observations are facts.  But so are assays, which are analogies. That is, analogies can be facts, and ARE facts--if the analogy is valid.

This is how science works.  We advance not because we know more, but because we have more facts to contemplate, most of which are derived from a theory/analogy. Issac Newton was one of the greatest physcists of all time, but he knew far less than a run of the mill physicist today.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 11:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:55 PM):Ragnarök_62 Wrote: My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff.

Yes.  Free lunches, junkets, disease "awareness" grants to increase (mis)diagnoses, lap dances, multimillion dollar speaking fees ... it's a racket:

http://theinfluence.org/you-wont-believe...ill-drugs/

People work for who they get paid by.  Doctors get paid by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, employers, the government - almost everyone except the patient.  That's the problem with third party payer.

I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but how will removing them from the loop prevent capture of our doctors by Big Pharma,  or any other interest with money to burn?  If anything, they probably fight the power, since it costs money to have overpriced pharmaceuticals.

Indeed.  The problem is not the entities that are in the loop so much as the entity that is missing - the patient. The doctor doesn't work for the patient, and that's the problem.

[Warren Dew]

(01-29-2017, 12:11 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:The argument that there is a direct correlation between untested dietary supplements and FDA approved drugs is obviously not true.  The same can be said for the relationship of a customer to a mechanic correlating directly to the relationship between a patient and his doctor.  If it hadn't been detailed earlier (and completely ignored), I might not have been as strident ... nor would Tim.

A correlation in what?  Their efficacy?  Their sales?  Don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

An analogy is not a fact.

If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence.  But you asked, so I'll answer:

• Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs.  That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control.  None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.
  
• Mechanic v. Physician:  The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable.  That's why they have malpractice insurance.  The same self regulation argument applies here.  A mechanic has none of those.
  

Actually, dietary supplements are also regulated, and their manufacturers can be sued every bit as much as pharmaceutical firms can be sued.  Obviously the fact is that regulated products can still be handled effectively by free market mechanisms.

Likewise, mechanics and their employers have liability insurance, of which malpractice insurance is just one form.  You can always be sued if you are negligent in providing paid services; that's true whether you are a physician or a mechanic.  The fact is, both types of services can be adequately handled by free market mechanisms.

None of this dictates third party payer mechanisms.  That's just a political preference on your part.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence.  But you asked, so I'll answer:

The scientific meaning of the word "fact"?  The bit this was in direct response to was your use of the word "correlation".  The correlation between over-the-counter supplements and FDA-approved drugs' what?  I still don't think you know what the word means.

Quote:Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs.  That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control.  None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.

Dietary supplements are regulated under the FDA.  So is food, for that matter (between the FDA, the USDA, etc.).  What does this prove?

Quote:Mechanic v. Physician:  The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable.  That's why they have malpractice insurance.  The same self regulation argument applies here.  A mechanic has none of those.

So do hairdressers.  There are certifications available for mechanics as well.  They can also be held liable if poor repair work leads to an accident.    So what?

Quote:In the social sphere, and even in some scientific applications, the preponderance of evidence is fully adequate to claim "proof".  Ask any judge.

This is not a court room.  An opinion that a doctor is or isn't similar to a mechanic is just that, an opinion.  Similar to a mechanic how?

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Yes it is.  Correlations and models are analogies of reality.  For example, what do we measure when air is assayed for CO2 content.  What is measured is an electrical signal, the output of a photomultiplier that converts light intensity to an electrical signal.  According to the Beer-Lambert theory: the negative log of the fraction of light of a particular wavelength that is not absorbed by a colored species (i.e. one that is not transparent at this wavelength) is directly proportional to the molar concentration of the species.

The idea is based on an observation.  If you make up a suspension, it will look almost clear, hazy, translucent, or opaque depending the concentration of the suspension.  This leads to an analogy for what might be going on.  Place the suspension in a square tube (cuvette).  When you shine a light on it, some of the light rays will hit a particle and not pass through the cuvette.  Other rays will miss the particles and pass right though.  The percentage of the rays that get through is the percent transmission or T.  Concentration of the particles is proportional to -logT.  THe log relationship comes from an imagined slicing the mixture into thin layers perpendicular to the light path that is one particle thick.  Each slice either contains a particle (which blocks the light ray) or it doesn't, which transmits the light. Each layer adds another chance at blocking the light.  The effect of additional layers is not additive.  This is because particles in one layer can be behind the location of particles in the layers in front of it, in which case the light was already blocked. If you use a little math it is clear that that the transmission and concentration have a log-dependence on the fraction of the locations of a layer than contain a particle (concentration) and the number of layers contained in the cuvette (path length) which gives the Beer-Lambert Law .

The Beer-Lambert Law is the basis for the utility of spectroscopic analytical methods.  When a theory becomes well accepted it is sometimes called a Law.  If one wishes to analyze something one measures absorbance (-logT) of the species in the sample and established they absence of interference and linearity of method.  One then has a validated assay. The output of a validated assay is a fact.  It is a fact derived from a model/theory based on some analogy obtained by conjecture, from observations.  Basic observations are facts.  But so are assays, which are analogies. That is, analogies can be facts, and ARE facts--if the analogy is valid.

This is how science works.  We advance not because we know more, but because we have more facts to contemplate, most of which are derived from a theory/analogy. Issac Newton was one of the greatest physcists of all time, but he knew far less than a run of the mill physicist today.

What a ridiculous response.  The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is something that has a definite answer independent of the observer.  Issues in measurement (the precise method used, whether the sample being tested is truly representative of the larger whole, etc.) clearly affect the degree of certainty we have in knowing that answer, but the answer itself is a real thing.  Arguing whether a doctor is or isn't like a mechanic, in what ways (it can't be in all ways otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy, but an identity), and how that relates to the question of public policy, is a wholly different kind of question, one that does indeed depend on one's "underlying philosophical assumptions" in a way that the other really doesn't.

So please, spare me the sophistry.

[Ragnarök_62]

(01-29-2017, 11:53 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2017, 12:36 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 11:55 PM):Ragnarök_62 Wrote: My guess is that Big Pharma also bribes docs to "sell" their stuff.

Yes.  Free lunches, junkets, disease "awareness" grants to increase (mis)diagnoses, lap dances, multimillion dollar speaking fees ... it's a racket:

http://theinfluence.org/you-wont-believe...ill-drugs/

People work for who they get paid by.  Doctors get paid by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, employers, the government - almost everyone except the patient.  That's the problem with third party payer.

I'm no fan of the insurance industry, but how will removing them from the loop prevent capture of our doctors by Big Pharma,  or any other interest with money to burn?  If anything, they probably fight the power, since it costs money to have overpriced pharmaceuticals.

Dunno if I forgot to put in the part of "replace with Medicare starts at age 0 and the health insurance premium cost would go directly or indirectly to funding the added costs."

[David Horn]

(01-29-2017, 04:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:If you intend to only use the scientific meaning of the term 'fact', then nothing will measure-up and all discussion will hedged to the point of bland incoherence.  But you asked, so I'll answer:

The scientific meaning of the word "fact"?  The bit this was in direct response to was your use of the word "correlation".  The correlation between over-the-counter supplements and FDA-approved drugs' what?  I still don't think you know what the word means.

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

\SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Drugs v Dietary Supplements: Testing and approvals for use are required of drugs.  That guarantees noting, but it does force an evidence trail that can be used to sue. Even Big Pharma hates law suits, so there is some degree of self regulation of both efficacy and quality control.  None of that applies to dietary supplements, which are offered for sale as commercial, not medical, items.

Dietary supplements are regulated under the FDA.  So is food, for that matter (between the FDA, the USDA, etc.).  What does this prove?

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

\SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Mechanic v. Physician:  The physician has to pass medical boards to practice, and has responsibilities that are enforceable.  That's why they have malpractice insurance.  The same self regulation argument applies here.  A mechanic has none of those.

So do hairdressers.  There are certifications available for mechanics as well.  They can also be held liable if poor repair work leads to an accident.    So what?

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

\SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:In the social sphere, and even in some scientific applications, the preponderance of evidence is fully adequate to claim "proof".  Ask any judge.

This is not a court room.  An opinion that a doctor is or isn't similar to a mechanic is just that, an opinion.  Similar to a mechanic how?

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.

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.

[SomeGuy]

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.

[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.