cableaddict :)
The fantasy aspect of this series - because it's set in America - is the part where money is no obstacle in health care options. If the show keeps going then they may have to address the part where bureaucracy is an obstacle by showing repercussions of the choices made so far.
Not to worry:
The Trump administration, along with the Republican majority on the hill, is about to all-but get rid of the FDA.
And the EPA. And the FEC. And the FTC.
They're even trying to get rid of the house ethics committee.
There was a tweet put out by donald taking credit for stopping the Republicans' sneaky midnight effort to get rid of their Independent Ethics Oversight (watchdogs) as the very first thing they did "in service" LOL to those they supposedly represent, but in reality, it was citizens whom stopped them in their tracks.
Remember how President Obama was blocked by Republicans for 8 years? The same methods which worked for Republicans was used by citizens to block them on this. It worked. And, it worked again with the recent push back against removing scientific facts on climate change and other government agencies. Here's what they did, how it worked and how it is still working:
https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web/Pure Genius does a great job of showing the complexities involved with medical ethics. Imagine what happens when information is filtered through interests of capitalism and theocracy rather than being presented based on scientific fact.
~~~ "Thinking" involves a lot more work than simply "having a thought"! ~~~
reply
share
reality42
7 years ago
re: "because it's set in America - is the part where money is no obstacle in health care options."
That has nothing to do with the fact that it is set in America, that is true anywhere. Contrary to the delusional fantasies of those who know little about how the world works, money is an obstacle in *every* country in the real world. The NHS in the UK turns down treatments that cost too much, if anyone bothers paying attention to what actually goes on in the rest of the world.
re: "Imagine what happens when information is filtered through interests of capitalism and theocracy rather than being presented based on scientific fact. "
That is making the strange implication there is someplace in the world where information is presented based on scientific fact, which isn't the case given the scientific illiteracy of most of the mainstream news media, not merely fictional television programs. If the comments are referring to the odd idea that the government could ever be a competent arbiter of scientific fact, the very concerns regarding Trump illustrate that is a fantasy since there is never any guarantee that someone who values science will be elected.
Both major parties have elements that push scientifically illiterate views, there are anti-vaccine activists within both major parties. There was much scientific (and economic) illiteracy within past administrations and Congresses from both major parties. Obviously its a concern when the president may be noticeably more scientifically illiterate, which is why there need to be checks and balances on the power of the president and the federal government. Thomas Jefferson noted long ago that we haven't found angels in the form of kings to govern us, nor have we found angels in the form of politicians and bureaucrats to do so since then. The public constantly needs to be on guard against flawed information, from many sources, and can't merely expect information to be "filtered through" some sort of magical "truth" filter. The best approach is competition of myriad sources to let people sort things out for themselves, as the competitive free market allows.
re: "complexities involved with medical ethics"
It is a cartoon simplistic level view of them. At most it highlights the existence of problems with medical ethics, a field full of nonsensical views driven both by profit (e.g. those who profit from dialysis working against payment for kidney donations) and on the flip side by those who hate profit (those who hate money so much they don't mind people dying for lack of a kidney as long as it keeps money out of the process, ignoring somehow all the money made by doctors and by those who run the transplant system and high paid medical ethicists who argue that "of course I should be paid well for my ethics views, but donors deserve no compensation for their sacrifice, it is evil to involve money in the process").
reply
share
kuntext
7 years ago
Contrary to the delusional fantasies of those who know little about how the world works, money is an obstacle in *every* country in the real world. The NHS in the UK turns down treatments that cost too much, if anyone bothers paying attention to what actually goes on in the rest of the world.
I've only personally been in need of medical care in 4 different countries outside of the US, including the UK but my work in human rights, specifically, femicide, has given me decades of exposure to health care realities in a more global sense.
From an American POV, what those whom live in countries with universal health care (pampered populations by comparison) fail to grasp is that there's a difference between a system which is based upon a shared value of health care as a basic human right and one which is based upon a survival of the fittest perspective. Does socialized medicine need great improvement? Yes.
Now, if America could only rise up to that imperfect standard.
Contrary to the delusional fantasies of those who know little about how the world works... and...if anyone bothers paying attention to what actually goes on in the rest of the world.
Conceit and disdain DO limit the capacity for fair-minded, reality-based, critical-thinking. If the shoe fits...
~~~ "Thinking" involves a lot more work than simply "having a thought"! ~~~
reply
share
reality42
7 years ago
re: "health care as a basic human right and one which is based upon a survival of the fittest perspective"
Unfortunately those who make that claim often push for more government intervention in the system without understanding the realities of how governments function in the real world, rather than wishful thinking about how we'd like them to. Economists study things like public choice theory regarding how governments should be expected to function based on incentives, and data that shows how they actually function. The main problem with our current system is government intervention to benefit special interest groups, as this page explains in detail with links to sources and comments regarding global comparisons:
http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/healthcare
Since as Nobel laureate economist George Stigler explained decades ago in his work on regulatory capture: ""as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit"
The outcome of a system doesn't depend on what you think of its morality or its intent. Supposedly the former Soviet Union and other communist countries "cared" more about providing things like food equally to everyone, in contrast to free market countries. In reality they led to food lines and suffering, since the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions. Free markets worldwide have led to a global drop in poverty, regardless of whether that is the intent of its participants. Charities and government aid are enlisted to deal with those that don't prosper, though overall greedy selfish capitalists have helped far more people even though that wasn't there intent.
Free markets deal with basic human nature rather than hoping it will change. They enlist personal self interest to serve the public since the products that best meet people's needs are those which prosper, regardless of whether people dislike the fact that some people may be motivated by "impure" things like selfishness.
Overall the US system is mostly undermined by government intervention, but despite that its outcomes are among the best in the world. There are misleading statistics out there regarding healthcare systems where the rankings, like those from WHO, are based in part on whether the system is single payer or not, rather than the actual outcomes of treatments (or others where they don't factor in the non-healthcare system factors like the prevalence of conditions due to lifestyle and genetic factors, rather than the outcomes of treatment).
re: "conceits and disdain." [...] "critical thinking".
Nowhere in the real world are there unlimited resources. My disdain was for those that seem to think that a government approach would magically provide unlimited resources. They aren't engaging in critical thinking.
reply
share