4 ms·

Nah, you're exhibiting the fundamental problem which is effectively conspiratorial thinking. Not in the UFO sense, and I don't mean it disparagingly at all -- I

Nah, you're exhibiting the fundamental problem which is effectively conspiratorial thinking. Not in the UFO sense, and I don't mean it disparagingly at all -- I mean literally ascribing behavior to some type of superstructure that doesn't really exist. "The healthcare system" is not one thing that "says" stuff. For every component of the education system that was trying to eliminate trades, there were others trying to combat it, and neither side was merely the decision of any conscious agent that could be said to be deciding or "saying" anything. All of the outcomes and the things these systems "say" are emergent phenomena from a confluence of countless forces. Sometimes they yield bad outcomes! But that doesn't mean you can just toss out the system, largely because unless you alter the larger dynamics that produced that system, any replacement will just come to mimic the prior one. The individuals involved hardly matter.

mike_hearn 1y ago
The health care system is heavily subject to licensing of various kinds, and academia is heavily defined by grant funding. If just a tiny handful of people in the government decide the healthcare system will say X, then it will say X.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  As a case in point, GP refers to "the Healthcare system leveraged our own wellbeing against their profits" That would point toward the business interests of actual provider organizations (like hospitals) or insurers, who have different incentives from each other and very different incentives from individual healthcare providers, who also have very different interests (and are very different people on a variety of dimensions) from those in academia who are "heavily defined by grant funding." Perhaps you could share a concrete example of what you mean, because right now we're talking about 4 or 5 completely distinct, individually gigantic industries that all interact to produce "the healthcare system" and its behaviors.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    The industries don't matter. They are all subject to very broad and powerful government licensing rules that can overrule their own opinions at any time. For example, during COVID there were doctors who lost their license to practice because they disagreed with the government stance on vaccines. Therefore, the remaining doctors spoke with one voice. The government used them as sock puppets, in effect. Whether you agree with this policy or not, it is an example in which the healthcare system became one system that "said" things in concert.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      No, they aren't "all" subject to licensing rules. That's why the specific industries do matter. Can you share some examples of these doctors? AFAIK the only doctors who lost their licenses are those who created fake medical documentation or who shared verifiably false medical information. Not for "disagreeing" with the government stance on vaccines. I don't know if you lived in a different timeline than me, but I remember a lively debate throughout the entirety of COVID. Consensus (and evidence) was overwhelmingly on one side, sure, similar to how consensus is that you should go to the hospital if you get a heart attack. And yeah, if a doctor advises someone against that despite strong clinical evidence that the patient is best served by going to the hospital, they'll jeopardize their license.
      - Bnichs 1y ago
        The problem is that when the government itself spreads verifiably false information, there are no reprocussions like there are for the individual who does it. Just like when an individual steals money they tend to face consequences, banks who do the same thing on a much more massive scale face nothing.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        You're suggesting the government shared information that was verifiably false at the time it was shared? Can you give some examples?
- jaybrendansmith 1y ago
  Everyone needs to simply go to a pharmacy or a doctor's office outside the US one time. If everybody did that, the US Healthcare system would be doused with gasoline, lit on fire, and be burned like the trash that it is.
Bnichs 1y ago
A system that naturally occurs as a result of the context like you describe sure sounds like a superstructure. Which in our case is a government that allows anyone with the money to steer the ship while actual people have little power to change anything. And when you put enough of those people with money in a room with people who take money and give them laws, it absolutely results in a single unified direction for that system. Of course there are disenters, but they are ineffective compared to those with actual power.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Yes, it is a superstructure but not one that "says" things and "makes decisions" in the way people imagine. > it absolutely results in a single unified direction for that system. Like below, you must live in an alternate timeline. There are lots of people who chose to "go their own way."
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
It's not a consipracy theory that the Catholic church harbored pedophiles, it's fact. Yes, there are many good people within the institution who are horrified by this. Not all participated in the conspiracy, and "conspiracy" might not be the right word. But the fact remains, this was the net behavior of the institution.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  I totally agree, the Catholic church is actually quite monolithic/coherent/directly culpable for output behavior. That's why I didn't list it in my response, though I think there's even a meaningful difference between "the church" (a super heterogenous type of organization) and "the Catholic church" (a single, highly centralized organization).
variadix 1y ago
The institutions have failed to follow their own (supposed) standards, and failed to purge bad actors that subverted or abandoned those standards. Yes, ultimately it is the people at those institutions that have failed not the institution in the abstract, but their failure to be accountable triggers the only response the public has: to distrust or abandon existing institutions and seek or create new ones.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Do you have some examples of these standards, bad actors, and failures to meet and purge them respectively?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mike_hearn 1y ago

The health care system is heavily subject to licensing of various kinds, and academia is heavily defined by grant funding. If just a tiny handful of people in the government decide the healthcare system will say X, then it will say X.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
As a case in point, GP refers to "the Healthcare system leveraged our own wellbeing against their profits" That would point toward the business interests of actual provider organizations (like hospitals) or insurers, who have different incentives from each other and very different incentives from individual healthcare providers, who also have very different interests (and are very different people on a variety of dimensions) from those in academia who are "heavily defined by grant funding." Perhaps you could share a concrete example of what you mean, because right now we're talking about 4 or 5 completely distinct, individually gigantic industries that all interact to produce "the healthcare system" and its behaviors.
- mike_hearn 1y ago
  The industries don't matter. They are all subject to very broad and powerful government licensing rules that can overrule their own opinions at any time. For example, during COVID there were doctors who lost their license to practice because they disagreed with the government stance on vaccines. Therefore, the remaining doctors spoke with one voice. The government used them as sock puppets, in effect. Whether you agree with this policy or not, it is an example in which the healthcare system became one system that "said" things in concert.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    No, they aren't "all" subject to licensing rules. That's why the specific industries do matter. Can you share some examples of these doctors? AFAIK the only doctors who lost their licenses are those who created fake medical documentation or who shared verifiably false medical information. Not for "disagreeing" with the government stance on vaccines. I don't know if you lived in a different timeline than me, but I remember a lively debate throughout the entirety of COVID. Consensus (and evidence) was overwhelmingly on one side, sure, similar to how consensus is that you should go to the hospital if you get a heart attack. And yeah, if a doctor advises someone against that despite strong clinical evidence that the patient is best served by going to the hospital, they'll jeopardize their license.
    - Bnichs 1y ago
      The problem is that when the government itself spreads verifiably false information, there are no reprocussions like there are for the individual who does it. Just like when an individual steals money they tend to face consequences, banks who do the same thing on a much more massive scale face nothing.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        You're suggesting the government shared information that was verifiably false at the time it was shared? Can you give some examples?
jaybrendansmith 1y ago
Everyone needs to simply go to a pharmacy or a doctor's office outside the US one time. If everybody did that, the US Healthcare system would be doused with gasoline, lit on fire, and be burned like the trash that it is.

Bnichs 1y ago

A system that naturally occurs as a result of the context like you describe sure sounds like a superstructure. Which in our case is a government that allows anyone with the money to steer the ship while actual people have little power to change anything. And when you put enough of those people with money in a room with people who take money and give them laws, it absolutely results in a single unified direction for that system. Of course there are disenters, but they are ineffective compared to those with actual power.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Yes, it is a superstructure but not one that "says" things and "makes decisions" in the way people imagine. > it absolutely results in a single unified direction for that system. Like below, you must live in an alternate timeline. There are lots of people who chose to "go their own way."

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

It's not a consipracy theory that the Catholic church harbored pedophiles, it's fact. Yes, there are many good people within the institution who are horrified by this. Not all participated in the conspiracy, and "conspiracy" might not be the right word. But the fact remains, this was the net behavior of the institution.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
I totally agree, the Catholic church is actually quite monolithic/coherent/directly culpable for output behavior. That's why I didn't list it in my response, though I think there's even a meaningful difference between "the church" (a super heterogenous type of organization) and "the Catholic church" (a single, highly centralized organization).

variadix 1y ago

The institutions have failed to follow their own (supposed) standards, and failed to purge bad actors that subverted or abandoned those standards. Yes, ultimately it is the people at those institutions that have failed not the institution in the abstract, but their failure to be accountable triggers the only response the public has: to distrust or abandon existing institutions and seek or create new ones.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Do you have some examples of these standards, bad actors, and failures to meet and purge them respectively?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]