3 ms·

Not sure if that was an attempt at a steelman or a strawman, but I think you are missing critical distinctions for the group that you are addressing. People, i

Not sure if that was an attempt at a steelman or a strawman, but I think you are missing critical distinctions for the group that you are addressing. People, in general, don't enjoy when powerful monopolistic entities directly ration access to goods & services based on immutable characteristics such as race. Groups not receiving the positive discrimination experience by said powerful entities will of course be frustrated. My read is the exact opposite on the group you are addressing: I would not expect the concerned people to be lobbying hard for single payer. Why would they want to give more power to an entity that shows it's willing to discriminate based on immutable characteristics such as race?

vkou 5y ago
Ah, but rationing based on mutable characteristics, like how much money and access to professional opportunities that your parents were born with, and whether or not you grew up in a broken home[1], or whether you grew up in a redlined apartment with lead dust peeling off the walls is fine? [1] Because dad's in prison for a crime that the right kind of people get community service for. And he wasn't the right kind of person.
- FFRefresh 5y ago
  I'm sensing a theme here in creating strawmen. My advice to you would be attempt to steelman opposing views. Attempt to find synthesis between your initial notions and the best parts of the opposing views. To answer you question at a high-level: Rationing based on things people have ZERO control over seems worse to me than rationing based on things people have SOME (even if a little) control over. And there of course will be a litany of hypothetical/real scenarios that we could drum up for each rationing strategy that shows people losing out (it's rationing, no matter what some people will not end up with access!). And highlighting one side of the costs doesn't immediately mean that the other side isn't more ethical.
bckr 5y ago
> People, in general, don't enjoy when powerful monopolistic entities directly ration access to goods & services based on immutable characteristics such as race. How would you describe current health insurance systems?
- FFRefresh 5y ago
  I'm not sure that I'm the authority on describing current health insurance systems, and if I attempted to describe it here, I'm not sure if I would stand by it completely upon further investigation and reflection. My understanding is fuzzy. If I were to read between the lines of your question, I can guess the direction you would want to go with this. My response (and you can treat this rhetorically) for that direction would be: -What's your understanding of the definition of 'direct' vs 'indirect'? -What's your understanding of the definition of 'rationing'? -What's your understanding of the definition of 'immutable'? -Are 'policies' and 'effects of policies' distinguishable concepts? -Does 'cause' differ from 'effect' with your understanding of the concepts? -Do humans have any control (i.e. free will) over their lives?
seoaeu 5y ago
I'd simply further: people don't enjoy rationing of goods and services. Inherently if there is more demand for services than there is capacity to provide them, then somebody is going to be left out. And there's a pretty good chance that they'll think the system is unfairly rigged against them, either individually or as a group.
ohCh6zos 5y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head. My governor appeared to be bending over backwards to vaccinate minority neighborhoods while at the same time it was incredibly hard for people with qualifying conditions to get a vaccine. This anecdote isn't the same as rigorous data, but it doesn't appear to matter to the people in my life who it impacted. Their trust in the government has been shattered.

vkou 5y ago

Ah, but rationing based on mutable characteristics, like how much money and access to professional opportunities that your parents were born with, and whether or not you grew up in a broken home[1], or whether you grew up in a redlined apartment with lead dust peeling off the walls is fine? [1] Because dad's in prison for a crime that the right kind of people get community service for. And he wasn't the right kind of person.

FFRefresh 5y ago
I'm sensing a theme here in creating strawmen. My advice to you would be attempt to steelman opposing views. Attempt to find synthesis between your initial notions and the best parts of the opposing views. To answer you question at a high-level: Rationing based on things people have ZERO control over seems worse to me than rationing based on things people have SOME (even if a little) control over. And there of course will be a litany of hypothetical/real scenarios that we could drum up for each rationing strategy that shows people losing out (it's rationing, no matter what some people will not end up with access!). And highlighting one side of the costs doesn't immediately mean that the other side isn't more ethical.

bckr 5y ago

> People, in general, don't enjoy when powerful monopolistic entities directly ration access to goods & services based on immutable characteristics such as race. How would you describe current health insurance systems?

FFRefresh 5y ago
I'm not sure that I'm the authority on describing current health insurance systems, and if I attempted to describe it here, I'm not sure if I would stand by it completely upon further investigation and reflection. My understanding is fuzzy. If I were to read between the lines of your question, I can guess the direction you would want to go with this. My response (and you can treat this rhetorically) for that direction would be: -What's your understanding of the definition of 'direct' vs 'indirect'? -What's your understanding of the definition of 'rationing'? -What's your understanding of the definition of 'immutable'? -Are 'policies' and 'effects of policies' distinguishable concepts? -Does 'cause' differ from 'effect' with your understanding of the concepts? -Do humans have any control (i.e. free will) over their lives?

seoaeu 5y ago

I'd simply further: people don't enjoy rationing of goods and services. Inherently if there is more demand for services than there is capacity to provide them, then somebody is going to be left out. And there's a pretty good chance that they'll think the system is unfairly rigged against them, either individually or as a group.

ohCh6zos 5y ago

I think you hit the nail on the head. My governor appeared to be bending over backwards to vaccinate minority neighborhoods while at the same time it was incredibly hard for people with qualifying conditions to get a vaccine. This anecdote isn't the same as rigorous data, but it doesn't appear to matter to the people in my life who it impacted. Their trust in the government has been shattered.