[ExI] you'll never see this again

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:23 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>…But it doesn't even matter because even if it's true it would in no way
>> change the fact that the healthcare system in the USA sucks compared to the
>> rest of the world…
>
>
> *> I see, so the method is to establish that judgment as the baseline
> fact, and any observation to the contrary is irrelevant unless it conforms
> to the assumption. *
>

The baseline is not an assumption.The baseline comes from 2 FACTS:

1) The US spends far FAR *FAR* more on healthcare than any other country.
2) Despite spending that vast amount of money the US only has the 38th
longest life expectancy in the world.

You claim the flaw in our healthcare system is in medical education and
then you claim the flaw is in the drug testing part of the healthcare
system, I don't really think either of those is the most significant flaw
but it's not worth debating because even if true it wouldn't change the 2
facts stated above. A good healthcare system would spend the least amount
of money and get the longest life expectancy, but the US spends by far the
largest amount of money on healthcare and yet it only has the 38th longest
life expectancy. So obviously something is very seriously wrong, the system
is flawed. So at this point I think it might be wise to show a little
humility and admit that we don't know everything and some other countries
might be able to do some things better than we can. So let's swallow our
pride and learn from them.

>…If true, which I doubt, it just means the US is wasting that drug testing
>> money pushing paper and not on helping patients live longer…
>
>
>
> *> I hear that turn of phrase often, but it always causes me to wonder
> where they push the paper to?  Does it suggest the half billion it costs to
> bring a new drug to market is not used for testing efficacy?*
>

I don't know where they're pushing the papers to, but if they're using all
that money for testing efficacy then obviously their testing sucks because
37 countries are spending far less and getting far more. So that's pretty
damn ineffective efficacy testing!

>…..I wasn't aware you were in favor of affirmative action to favor
>> minorities…
>
>
> *> All minorities deserve protection,*
>

Who is protecting those poor second class citizens who get 66.7 times fewer
citizenship rights?

>… but Wyoming is lily white, only 2.47% of the population is Native
>> American and 1.8% black…
>
>
> *> Why is that relevant please?  *
>

Beats the hell out of me, but then I'm not the one who made the
ridiculous claim
that the electoral college protects minority rights.

>…I am quite certain that isn't true, but if it was that would mean a c
>> oalition of states is a bad idea and a coalition of people would work
>> much better…
>
>
> *> So we are told in the communist dictatorships.*
>

Do you mean "communist dictatorships" like those in Hong Kong, Japan,
Singapore, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, Iceland, Israel,
SouthKorea, Sweden, France, Malta, Canada, Norway, Greece, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Andorra, Finland, Belgium,
Austria, Germany, Slovenia, UnitedKingdom, European Union, Cyprus, Denmark,
Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Chile, Czech Republic, Barbados and Lebanon?
Every single one of these countries spends far FAR less per capita on
healthcare than the USA does and the citizens of every single one of these
countries live longer than Americans do. Don't you think that maybe just
maybe the US could learn something from them? Or do you continue to think
there is no need to change a thing because we've already got our healthcare
working just perfectly despite what the data clearly shows?


> *>  The minority of voters who live in less populated areas* [...]
>

I don't even know what "minority" means in this context. If I'm the only
one living in a state with a large land area then I'm the majority of the
population. And besides as you point out, people are able to move, so those who
live in less populated areas can always move to more populated areas.


> >… land ownership is just one of many forms of wealth…
>
>
> *> Sure but one need not own land to live in Wyoming.*
>

If it's not land area then what the hell is the secret magical quality that
makes people who live in Wyoming 66.7 times better than people who live in
California?!  Could the secret sauce be that people who live in Wyoming are
66.7 times as likely to be MAGA Hatter gun nuts?

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200704/2ebbba11/attachment.htm>