| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
As long as there's no direct evidence that she's part of the corrupt scheme, and instead there being good evidence to the contrary (like in the interview), I see no reason to shift any of the blame onto her. Quite the opposite. And no, guilt by association is not a valid argument. It's a fallacy. The claim that she's selling snake oil to people is false. From that the conclusion that her explanation of how obesity functions is tainted by financial interests is false. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5588 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On June 23 2023 20:58 Elroi wrote: I only saw her blame the insurance companies for not buying more medicine (and the regulators for not giving it the green light in all circumstances?) in the passage you cited, not the medical company she works for? Regarding the companies selling medicine I said she confirmed, not blamed them, that they're selling to the highest bidder. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10115 Posts
On June 24 2023 03:55 BlackJack wrote: What highest bidder? She said no such thing as far as I see. She confirmed that it costs a lot which creates a disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Can't you read the article? She is quite literal and you have to be purposefully obtuse to not understand the have and have nots. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On June 24 2023 17:51 Godwrath wrote: Can't you read the article? She is quite literal and you have to be purposefully obtuse to not understand the have and have nots. I don't know what's complicated about this. Something is not "sold to the highest bidder" merely because it's expensive. There's tons of things the haves can afford that the have-nots can't. I assure you the comment about the haves and the have-nots is to argue that the insurance companies need to cover it so the have-nots can have it too and not that the company paying her should lower the price so that the have-nots could have it too. "Selling to the highest bidder" is more devious than simply "being expensive." If the only argument for why she's not a pharma shill is because she "confirmed the company is selling to the highest bidder", which isn't even true, then that's not a very good argument. Also you don't get to just make up ways to apply a phrase. Somebody here has to hold down the fort in defense of linguistics. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
Now instead you're holding onto a minute disagreement about terminology, when that is irrelevant to the point at large. Just admit that Stanford is not corrupt. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On June 24 2023 20:49 Magic Powers wrote: You're trying to paint Stanford as either corrupt or otherwise financially driven when the facts do not support your claim. Now instead you're holding onto a minute disagreement about terminology, when that is irrelevant to the point at large. Just admit that Stanford is not corrupt. I don't think she's corrupt. I think there's a high likelihood that she believes what she is saying. That's the problem. You and others are the ones saying "well when she says this what she really means is..." I'm saying I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone on TV that's being paid to promote prescription drugs. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On June 24 2023 21:05 BlackJack wrote: I don't think she's corrupt. I think there's a high likelihood that she believes what she is saying. That's the problem. You and others are the ones saying "well when she says this what she really means is..." I'm saying I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to someone on TV that's being paid to promote prescription drugs. Yes, the problem is always other people and especially the scientists. If scientists say something it's a problem, and people believing scientists is a problem. Do you remember when I explained that conservatives are inherently anti-science? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On June 24 2023 21:12 Magic Powers wrote: Yes, the problem is always other people and especially the scientists. If scientists say something it's a problem, and people believing scientists is a problem. Do you remember when I explained that conservatives are inherently anti-science? Why do you seem to think scientists are beyond reproach? There can be scientists in the same field that have competing theories that are contradictory to one another. Now I'm no big city detective but I'd say that pretty much guarantees that at least one side of that argument is severely off the mark. She's arguing for one theory of obesity (set point theory) and there are other theories as well. What you like to do is elevate the theory that you favor and then dismiss anyone that disagrees as being "anti-science." | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On June 24 2023 21:45 BlackJack wrote: Why do you seem to think scientists are beyond reproach? There can be scientists in the same field that have competing theories that are contradictory to one another. Now I'm no big city detective but I'd say that pretty much guarantees that at least one side of that argument is severely off the mark. She's arguing for one theory of obesity (set point theory) and there are other theories as well. What you like to do is elevate the theory that you favor and then dismiss anyone that disagrees as being "anti-science." Your claim of Stanford pushing pills is false. Admit it first and then we can talk. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10335 Posts
On June 24 2023 21:48 Magic Powers wrote: Your claim of Stanford pushing pills is false. Admit it first and then we can talk. What’s your explanation for why that entire interview reads like an advertisement? With novo nordisk paying both the doctors they interviewed and paying CBS as a sponsor. One of the doctors is calling their drugs “fabulous and safe and effective.” Like seriously who refers to a pharmaceutical as fabulous… | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On June 24 2023 22:03 BlackJack wrote: What’s your explanation for why that entire interview reads like an advertisement? With novo nordisk paying both the doctors they interviewed and paying CBS as a sponsor. One of the doctors is calling their drugs “fabulous and safe and effective.” Like seriously who refers to a pharmaceutical as fabulous… I don't think you understand. I'm not giving you anything you ask for until you admit that your claim was false. We're not going to get to any kinds of agreements otherwise. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24348 Posts
On June 23 2023 18:57 gobbledydook wrote: Essentially what it is, is instead of charging per visit or procedure, the hospital or clinic gets paid for every patient they treat that reach the desired health outcome. That might include recovery, or palliative care, or whatever else the best outcome for the patient would be. In order to do this effectively, you need to collect a lot more data about how well a patient is being served, and completely overhaul the business model, which is a big paradigm shift and that is why progress is slow. That sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to implement, although a welcome shift in overall approach. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44030 Posts
On June 24 2023 23:49 WombaT wrote: That sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to implement, although a welcome shift in overall approach. I'd imagine that payment based solely on successfully treating the patients, rather than based on how many patients are seen, could lead to a very difficult balancing act of quality vs. quantity. On one hand, the hospital or clinic would be more incentivized to make sure the patients that they do see get full care of the highest caliber; on the other hand, it might be the case that only certain (easier?) patients end up being selected, while the harder-to-diagnose/help patients might be turned away? Or are patients not allowed to be turned away? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
GSL Code S
Cure vs sOs
Reynor vs Solar
WardiTV Qualifier
OSC
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
Maru vs TriGGeR
Rogue vs NightMare
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
Online Event
SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
