|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [23963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12093
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Social Justice
Apr 8, 2021, 11:55 PM
|
|
What does that mean?
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [111375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73666
Joined: 9/10/03
|
per googler
Apr 9, 2021, 12:38 AM
|
|
Social justice is fairness as it manifests in society. That includes fairness in healthcare, employment, housing, and more.
an example would be income as a determinant of basic health care outcomes. That would not be a form of social justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
You cant prevent income from affecting health care
Apr 9, 2021, 1:36 AM
|
|
outcome. In the most communist and parental states that ever existed, people with money and/or influence bought or acquired their choice of healthcare. If what you said reflects what the left thinks, it hasn't thought through how to word what it has in mind, or it wants something it hasn't thought through how to produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: You cant prevent income from affecting health care
Apr 9, 2021, 9:25 AM
|
|
I think it means that those unreasonable inequities would be significantly reduced - not necessarily eliminated. People with power and money will always use them to get better stuff, but we could do better as a society as far as EQUITABLE distribution of some resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
How did you conclude that medical care is unfairly and
Apr 9, 2021, 10:58 AM
|
|
inequitably delivered? You decide things on empirical data, so how did you conclude all outcomes should be equal, which was the statement in the post to which I responded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: How did you conclude that medical care is unfairly and
Apr 9, 2021, 12:00 PM
|
|
tulsa
First of all equitable is not equal.
Secondly, if one could show that one's income level affects the quality of one's health care, I would consider that inequitable. You might disagree and we could have a discussion about how health care might be more equitably distributed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Rather than a terminology debate, what if you answer my
Apr 9, 2021, 12:12 PM
|
|
Qquestion, which is, "On what basis do you conclude health care is not fairly and equitably distributed?"
You haven't shown that, have you? You begin with an "if" question, but want to make sweeping changes because you can ask it. If you want me to agree with you, you'll need better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73666
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: You cant prevent income from affecting health care
Apr 9, 2021, 11:08 AM
[ in reply to You cant prevent income from affecting health care ] |
|
Ok, you had to rope authoritarian communism into this, I know that is always a fun diversion..
But yes, we can divorce health outcomes from income, literally, every other developed nation does a better job here. I think technically Jamaica beats us here too.
A wealthy guy is more than welcome to pay out of pocket to see the top specialists, but the idea is for insulin to be affordable and people on Medicaid get proper cancer treatments, providing the basics for a healthier population. That costs us far less in the long run.
Our system suffers from the profit motive, that is why people remain sick and symptoms are treated with medications instead of treating causality. it is much profitable for the healthcare industry as a whole to basically suck at their job and be willfully ineficient. Every other developed nation figured this out decades ago, we are the outlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 12:31 PM
|
|
pointed out that with the most allegedly universal of distribution of goods and services, which is in communist countries, differences in income and influence will affect what medical care is provided. Can't do anything about that. If the use of the term "communist" is irritating to you, that likely shows something else worth discussing as another subject.
I see your series of claims, but I don't agree with them. Jamaica beats us, eh? On what basis would you conclude such a thing? I assume you understand that referring to a health stat does not say anything about the health care system. Some Europhiles will say, for instance, that a few countries in Scandinavia have longer life expectancies than the US. True. But then adjust US deaths for auto accidents and (one other such item, I forget what it is) and the US life expectancy comes back to or exceeds those. Those are issues worth discussion, but its not health care.
Many very basic stats are affected by obesity, cultural choices, etc. Can't just point to an outcome and blame it on "health care inequity".
The stat few ever show is this one: once presented with an issue (heart attack, cancer, etc), the highest five year life expectancy in the world is the US. You don't get that by offering it to just the top earners: that has to be broadly offered to make a statistical difference. If something life threatening is wrong with you, regardless of income, statistically this is where you want to be.
But perhaps you are thinking of a person who earns 100K/year, who goes to a doc and doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time worried about it ... vs a single mom with no income who worries about "can't afford a doc". Granted there is an emotional difference. But in terms of actual health care, the difference is not as great as that makes out. For you claim to be valid, you have to show what outcomes are different, and how great. I haven't seen it.
I understand you have an ideological perspective on this. But we can't propose sweeping changes based on that. We both want the same thing: the highest quality offered to the most people. At least I think we both want that: you are maybe willing to go for "lower quality" if that means outcomes are allegedly more equal. What exactly is the problem you want to solve? If your only answer is another ideological rant, we're just talking partisan politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 255
Joined: 4/22/17
|
Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 3:19 PM
|
|
The stat few ever show is this one: once presented with an issue (heart attack, cancer, etc), the highest five year life expectancy in the world is the US. You don't get that by offering it to just the top earners: that has to be broadly offered to make a statistical difference. If something life threatening is wrong with you, regardless of income, statistically this is where you want to be.
Doesn’t this go to show that the US isn’t very good at preventative care? We have some of the highest rates of chronic illnesses of any wealthy country in the world, so while it’s great that we’re good at treating people once they’re sick, it’d be nice if we could catch some of these cases before they become a problem. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you which people aren’t seeing a physician for preventative care...
I also think you’re being a bit dismissive of the extra burden placed on poor people when it comes to the cost of treatment. You say there’s an “emotional difference” while the reality is a bit more serious than that. In 2019 alone, about 530,000 Americans went bankrupt due to medical debt. That doesn’t seem like a very equitable system to me.
The article I’ve attached goes over the results of a study done on health impacts due to various factors, which found that income was the biggest predictor of differences in health outcomes. It’s a pretty interesting read.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/28/736938334/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-americans-health-is-widening
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 5:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I ] |
|
How does a good stat possibly show the existence of a bad one? Once an event occurs, the recovery rate is higher here than anywhere. That is excellent medical care. That says nothing about how many of those events happened or what caused them. To suggest that excellent outcomes is caused by poor primary medical care is such a bonehead error in rationality - the two don't even relate - that it was hard to keep reading anything you had to say. But I did.
As to being dismissive of the burden on the poor, no, I was not being dismissive of it but was isolating it. What are we actually talking about? Of course money is an emotional issue, but if that is the one the poster wants to address, or you, say exactly that. And at that point we're not talking about health care anymore, which is fine, but say it. Sure, a wealthy person goes to the doc and doesn't think about it. I do. That doesn't mean he owes me anything. If you think so, say it, and lets talk about that, which is not actually health care.
I have read that article. The error you are making is assuming that the conclusion is, "wealthy people are healthier because they get better health care." Nothing in the article even remotely supports that idea. Higher income people are healthier for a variety of reasons, most of which are personal/cultural. Again, isolating the factors is not something you do by trading political slogans and links. What is actually available, and who takes advantage of it and who doesn't. You haven't even begun to address those things.
You are proposing that we need broad changes, so it is you who has to (1) show what is lacking and (2) propose a solution. IE, who is not receiving primary care, and why are they not receiving it? Both of those have to be fact based, not ideological. So far you have not gotten past the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 255
Joined: 4/22/17
|
Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 8:14 PM
|
|
I wasn’t suggesting that excellent outcomes are caused by poor primary medical care. Just pointing to the fact that the US has a much higher rate of chronic disease than many other comparable countries, which means our doctors are treating more diseases after they’re found instead of taking preventative measures earlier on.
The reason I brought up medical debt is because this can prohibit people from actually getting the healthcare they need. It also ties back in to the lack of preventative care in the US, poor people don’t go to the doctor unless they absolutely have to.
I haven’t proposed anything so far. I don’t think I need to answer either of your questions to explain though. We can look at other countries with government provided health insurance, look at the data which shows their outcomes are overall better while spending less, and try to implement something similar here. I guess I just don’t see the problem with having more people covered, less total costs, and better overall outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24451]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13956
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Okay, I'll accept that you didn't intend to. But just to
Apr 9, 2021, 9:01 PM
|
|
close the issue, what you said was, "Doesn’t this go to show that the US isn’t very good at preventative care?" The answer is, "No. The two don't even relate." We might or might not be good at primary care, but excellence in medical care is not evidence one way or the other.
I actually agree that some of the issues you raise need to be discussed and understood. Whether action is needed, and if so what, is another matter. Whether other countries spend less is difficult to compare, as is the amount service delivered. I will grant, however, that the current way we pay for it is asinine. Some say we have a capitalist system, and want to blame that, but whether we have a capitalist system is not the issue: all Western systems are capitalist to some degree. What we don't have is a free market system. If one set out to devise a system that would ensure dramatically higher cost, what we now do would be the one you would choose.
So, while you are right that you don't have to answer any questions - anyone is free to say anything they like, however unsupported it might be - if one wants to change anything those questions do have to be answered by someone. Whether they actually will be is anybody's guess.
However, all that is now completely off the subject. The subject we started with - not you and I but this thread - was a claim that equity meant universally equal outcomes. Not only is that a full on ideological statement completely divorced from the issue of what benefits all the most, but it ignores the fact that outcomes are caused by all sorts of things that cannot be governmentally managed.
I hate long posts, but let me run this by you. We have a middle class that can only be called fabulously wealthy by historical world standards. It is also true that if one gets a high school degree and makes a wise decision about when to have children (be married or over 21), the chances of attaining or staying in that middle class is almost a certainty. That is a statistical fact, per the census and the Heritage Foundation, citation upon request. IE, avail oneself of the free education provided, make one wise decision about family/children, you'll never worry about money.
Yet we have produced an entire subset of our culture that chooses to not take those things. They are free for the taking, absolutely available to everyone, yet a significant part of our culture won't do it. Rather than look at why that is happening and address that, we blame any number of things that make for partisan political narratives. And now we have people who think obesity, diabetes, poor diet, smoking and worse, and poor primary care is mostly due to "health care inequity"? I need more than a rant to believe that a "system" is causing that. I am very open to considering how to raise up the lowest of us, but we have to look at truth, not political ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [400]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 255
Joined: 4/22/17
|
Re: Okay, I'll accept that you didn't intend to. But just to
Apr 9, 2021, 9:39 PM
|
|
Just to make my position clear, I don't claim that equity means equal outcomes. I'd consider a healthcare system to be equitable if all people were able to obtain necessary medical care at an affordable rate. Of course wealthier people are still likely going to have better outcomes, I just think that the floor should be raised.
While it is undeniably good personal advice to finish high school, get a job, plan when to to have kids, and I am aware of the statistics about how these factors relate to poverty, I struggle to understand how this could translate to government policy. Beyond that, our middle class is shrinking and wealth inequality is becoming more pronounced in the US. I doubt that can be entirely attributed to an less people following this advice, but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd be interested in looking at it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "we have produced an entire subset of culture that chooses not to take those things." If you mean poor people in general, I think its again helpful to look at other countries to provide ideas of what does and doesn't work. Countries that implement collective mechanisms for sharing risks have proven to be successful with less poverty and happier populations. I don't think the people/culture in the US is so different that some of these good ideas could not be implemented here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8885]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9764
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I
Apr 9, 2021, 10:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: I didn't rope in anything and it wasn't a diversion. I ] |
|
freedom to choose, many if not most medical conditions are because of poor choices, i earned every condition that i have
drugs and teen pregnancy puts a bunch of folks in the poor house too, free to make bad decisions
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8885]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9764
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: per googler
Apr 9, 2021, 11:11 AM
[ in reply to per googler ] |
|
venezuela has a great program to fight obesity
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Social Justice
Apr 9, 2021, 6:03 AM
|
|
It means “we want free stuff”. It means “we want your stuff too “.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5646]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12124
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Social Justice
Apr 9, 2021, 9:24 AM
|
|
It is a fake term made up by the people that make a living off the stupid liberal progressives out there that buy into all this chit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34486]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13513
Joined: 8/30/19
|
You are, quite literally, the
Apr 9, 2021, 5:30 PM
|
|
dumbest person on this board.
You think that "social justice" is a made up term?
FYI, all terms are "made up". But this is just mouthbreathing dumb. Even for you. And that says a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
