site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   30942 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

UnitedHealth bid a lower cost for the contract, won it, and promptly started denying most claims on the first pass. Only clinics which sent appeals would get paid, and almost always did.

The scummy behavior isn't just on the insurance companies: [redacted] went to a medical provider that decided to code every (scheduled!) specialist office visit with an ER facility fee, and the insurer just shrugged and said it wasn't their problem and wouldn't do anything about it until the out-of-pocket maximum, even though they would have covered such fees for a real ER visit (conveniently, this happened to save them money). Not really much you can do unless you have a competent HR department on your side, which I've been fortunate enough to personally have in the past, except pay it, call and complain until they reduce the charges, and/or leave poor reviews.

I'm not sure I'm qualified to make good suggestions about how to improve medical billing, but it's pretty clearly a mess of opaque charges. Trump in 2019 forced providers to publish price lists, which I'd have though might improve things, but it doesn't really seem to have. Active price-fixing is generally bad for all the well-known reasons even if more uniformity in prices for, say, appendectomies would make arbitrage easier. Are there any real proposals with a sound economic basis for improving things? As much as I don't like throwing up my hands in not understanding complex systems (and deferring to Chesterton on the subject of fences), I don't exactly have a better suggestion at hand.

Trump in 2019 forced providers to publish price lists, which I'd have though might improve things, but it doesn't really seem to have.

Price transparency is always better because it cuts down on asymmetric info and makes the market more efficient, but I think the effect from these is mostly going to be behind the scenes, from the perspective of the average consumer.

For one thing, you can't pick and choose which insurance company pays for which service. If Walmart is charging less for a product that I usually buy at Target, I can just buy that one thing at Walmart and keep buying my other stuff from Target. I can't do that with medical services.

Also, even with a publicly-available price list, I can only use that list if I know exactly which line on the massive spreadsheet actually applies to me. And then, what do I do with that info? If my open enrollment period is coming up and I know I have a major procedure after that, I could do the research and switch plans, but how many people are in that position?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats