3 ms·
This misses the point. It could be well argued - or even simply stated - that, yes, US healthcare system has in fact primary mission to benefit health of US po
by avmich 7y ago
This misses the point.
It could be well argued - or even simply stated - that, yes, US healthcare system has in fact primary mission to benefit health of US population. How'd you argue it's not the case? I, for one, know this is my idea of the system. Will you prove that those who proposed the system had other ideas? Can you get in their heads? Can you get in the heads of those implementing the system? They'll perhaps bring enough words trying to convince you otherwise - and some would be sincere.
The problem is that a big system is a collective work - and different agents have different goals in mind. Sometimes they can have compromises - agreements on goals, partial or final. Sometimes they can trick each other into doing something which benefits some agents' goals, but not others. You can't make a big system realistically without many agents - so how can you make sure they all work with similar goals?
We talk a lot about possibilities, but sometimes not enough about intentions - and especially verifiable goals. Politicians can promise many things, but it could be expensive to elect somebody who's stating something meaning something completely different - and this idea holds on various levels of public (not only public - see e.g. office politics) decision making.
- r00fus 7y ago> It could be well argued - or even simply stated - that, yes, US healthcare system has in fact primary mission to benefit health of US population. How'd you argue it's not the case? No, that's the entire point greendave was trying to make. The system's goal has been perverted or coopted. This is a logical result of a corrupted system. Relevant imagery: zerg infestation.
- avmich 7y ago> The system's goal has been perverted or coopted. I think that's a good description. We can use this model to work on fixing the problem.
- ryandrake 7y agoI don't think you should judge a system's purpose by the stated intentions behind it, you judge it by outcomes. By observing the outcome of a system (or business, or legislation), you can draw a conclusion about its actual purpose. EDIT: milesokeefe's Wikipedia link says this better than I could.
- avmich 7y agoI built a car to drive around. Car broke at a nearest intersection. We, however, not talking about car' intentions - we talk about my intentions, and my intentions weren't to stop that soon. > I don't think you should judge a system's purpose by the stated intentions behind it, you judge it by outcomes. I do judge by outcomes. I also judge purpose - which is something which was planned, desired for before the system was built - by how I can find that purpose. If somebody tried to save a drowning person by throwing him a rope, but missed and the person died, that doesn't mean that somebody was trying to kill the person. If a system doesn't produce effect A, that doesn't mean it's not trying - as system's creator intended. The Wikipedia article is ok, if we differentiate intents of a system - which could be a special thing for non-humans - and of system creators.
- ryandrake 7y agoThis is not a machine that normally does one thing, but in an exceptional case fails and does something else. We're talking about a system that in normal operation, during steady state, does X and has outcome Y. That is its purpose.