Conversation
Notices
-
@dt extreme wealth and income inequality is a systemic output of corporatist systems, and you are defending the former. If the cap fits..
-
@dt how?
-
@dt hypothetically, sure. Is that how the inequality of both income *and* wealth have grown across the anglophone world since the 1980s?
-
@dt wow, your ideological simulation of the world covers everything... but at no point does it make contact with evidence without crashing
-
@dt I used to live in an anarchist bubble and squat the moral high ground too (sometimes still do). You can't change anything real in there
-
@dt reality is messier than any model can fully describe, and to be useful, political theory has to be changed to fit reality not vice-versa
-
@dt this comment is a restatement of your ideology as proof of the correctness of your ideology. This is *exactly* what I'm talking about
-
@dt "obviously true" = ideological belief. Nothing is obviously true. Some things are supported better by evidence than others
-
@dt claims made without reference to real world evidence are meaningless statements of belief; ideology
-
@dt an example, real world evidence shows the US spends more on health care per capita than many countries with better health outcomes
-
@dt all of which have a public health system ("single-payer" in US-speak)
-
@dt countries like mine (NZ) which had fully funded public health and moved towards commercialization have declining health outcomes
-
@jaranta @dt a handful of eccentric characters in the larger cities, or large populations of them like in the US?
-
@dt so however inconvenient it might be to my anarchist beliefs, the evidence shows that integrated, not-for-profit health systems work best
-
@dt in the face of this evidence I can a) deny it b) seek counter-evidence or c) looks for ways to do "single-payer" health without states
-
@dt sorry for the fragmented rant, but it's hard to put forward a position on stuff like this in 140 characters. Please respond to the whole
-
@dt ...argument, rather than taking potshots at de-contextualized bits of it
-
@dt it seems you opted for option a), and any evidence I present will be similarly denied. Not much point continuing the discussion is there
-
@jaranta ok. Has the rate of homelessness been declining, roughly stable, or growing (as it is in the US and in my country)?
-
@dt true, but the fact you've failed to see the copious evidence that supports my claim is your failing not mine. Try:
http://qttr.at/1xji
-
@dt or:
http://qttr.at/1xjj
-
@dt or:
http://qttr.at/1xjk
-
@dt based on what I've seen so far I expect you to religiously defend your chosen ideology regardless of the evidence. Surprise me
-
@dt explain your vision for health provision and how it fits with real world evidence. Honestly, I'm all ears
-
@dt once again, calling it "hyperregulated" fits your ideology. Any health system in a country with a state would fit that characterization
-
@dt what those studies contrast is for-profit system vs. not-for-profit, and the for-profit system fails on almost every measure.
-
@dt worth noting too that the government-managed health systems were studied at a time when they'd been purposefully run down by neoliberals
-
@dt ok, let's test that theory. Ask me a question about the US healthcare system
-
@dt I'd counter that you seem to know very little about any kind of health system except the one in your Snow Crash fantasies
-
@dt do you know a single person who works in the health system? I have friends who are nurses (general and pysch), social workers etc
-
@dt Obamacare gives corporate welfare to corporate health insurers while forcing them to give coverage to poor people. How's that?
-
@dt it's the health equivalent of the bank bailouts. Give more money to corporations, and naively assume that will "trickle down"
-
@dt the same money, used to fund not-for-profit hospitals and especially primary health clinics, would supply many times more care per $
-
@dt that's what a "single-payer" health system means to me. No corporate welfare, but businesses are still free to offer health services
-
@dt my turn. Describe in less than 500 chars how the Canadian health system works *and* how its health outcomes compare to those in the US
-
@dt you can only give on fact "It's completely owned by the state" and it's wrong *sigh*
-
@dt this says that public hospitals are under the control of regional government, not the federal state. No law against private hospitals
-
@dt in Candana , as in many countries (eg UK), public health systems have been chronically underfunded to create a market for private care
-
@dt yes *still* produce significantly better health outcomes than in countries with a mostly for-profit health care system (eg US)
-
@dt you can't argue that for-profit system deliver better health care based on evidence, so you just say you "don't care"? How convincing...
-
@strypey @dt In Spain the the government is been sabotaging the public health system for years, underfunding it and it says it doesn't work
-
@dt this is an all-or-nothing fallacy. Fire is good for many things, but I wouldn't use it to perform surgery
-
@dt User pays fundamentally fails in health care, because the better a job a healer does, the less repeat custom they get
-
@dt the most profitable health care business is one that keeps people alive but chronically sick, requiring as much treatment as possible
-
@dt I gave you peer-reviewed journal articles as evidence, you give me a ream of propaganda from one clearly biased think tank?
-
@dt you really going to let someone paid by the Koch Brothers tell you what to think and ignore independent research?!?
http://qttr.at/1xr0
-
@dt yes, I reject starting with what you want to believe and cherry-picking evidence to fit that belief. That's not any kind of science
-
@dt there's no such thing as "solid theory". In science, theories change and expand in response to observed and experimental facts
-
@dt you need *a* theory, yes, otherwise I agree you don't know what you are looking at. But a scientist is aware of confirmation bias
-
@dt again, picking only the facts that fit the theory and discarding the rest is religion, not science of any kind
-
@veg05 @dt it takes time for studies to be checked and replicated, and for new information gleaned by them to spread
-
@dt it's the method for science. Period.
-
@dt My fiancee just got her Phd in Anthropology, a social science. It does not start with fixed theories and cherry-pick facts to fit them
-
@dt it starts with ethnographic field work, and uses a range of theory from the existing literature to interpret the resulting data
-
@dt what it does not do is look only for data that supports one school of theory, and ignore all other data. That's not any kind of science.
-
@dt look, if you don't want to talk about reality you should have said.
-
@dt of course your theoretical fantasy worlds can't be proved or disproved.
-
@dt But show me a theoretical model of a hurricane that is itself windy and wet, or that can change a storm by changing the model.
-
@dt kids living in cars is a reality in my country
http://qttr.at/1xtr
-
@dt whatever economic theory I might draw on to understand why, I cannot deny the evidence that kids are living in cars or I am talking shit
-
@dt nor the evidence that kids didn't used to live in cars in this country, and it began after decades of privatization and benefit cuts
-
@dt if I deny that "free market" rationalization for pro-corporate policy has made this problem, then failed to fix it, I am talking shit
-
@dt which one describes Koch Brothers funded PR think tanks like Foundation for Economic Education?
http://qttr.at/1xr0
-
@deadsuperhero thanks, but I think I'm done. Nothing about the exchange convinces me I'm not talking to a bot reacting to keywords
-
@dt right, so if your economic theory says 'people don't hit each other with fish', and I slap you with a salmon, is the theory wrong?
-
@dt or is non-fish-aggression so self-evident and axiomatic that being blatantly contrary to observable reality doesn't matter?
-
@dt it's not a strawman, it's a thought experiment. Boy would I enjoy slapping some sense into you with a piscine implement though :P
-
@dt I see you've neatly avoided all the hard questions asked of you in this discussion, giving trite non-answers, or changing the subject
-
@dt falling back every time on a set of PR key messages you can't even properly explain or defend. You're probably right though...
-
@dt ... that you're ideologically immune to seeing sense, no matter how much time anyone put into explanations (slappings with seafood)
-
@dt you know very well that this account doesn't have the power to do that here. Want to shift the discussion to #Diaspora or #Hubzilla?
-
@dt well, I've learned another place to go if I want to know what the Koch Brothers want people to think, so thanks for that. Later