site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10d ago (text post)   2619 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think the more amazing thing is that we had this huge healthcare reform and if the insurance companies were regulated before, they are hyper-regulated now, and yet almost no people pay any attention to any role the regulators play in the system. I mean for all people eager to murder healthcare CEOs, at least some percent of them should direct equal hate to their local congress-critter whose stuff literally wrote most of the rules the CEOs play by (and whose campaign is financed by the same CEO, too). Yet nobody is even trying to think in that direction and link the huge achievement of Obamacare with the present state of healthcare market. It's like they brain run on KamalaOS 1.0 - "we made absolutely no mistakes and we need to fix everything urgently!".

Also, twitter haters probably occupy much smaller part of the real world that one might think when opening twitter.

I mean for all people eager to murder healthcare CEOs, at least some percent of them should direct equal hate to their local congress-critter whose stuff literally wrote most of the rules the CEOs play by (and whose campaign is financed by the same CEO, too).

The problem is, it's not the "local congress-critter" that actually wrote the regulation, it is, as you note, their staff (I'm pretty sure that's what you meant, and "stuff" was a typo or autocorrupt). Taking out a congressman is probably harder than taking out a CEO, and it likely leaves his replacement inheriting that staff.

And you can't change things by taking out the staffers, because while they may have less physical security, it's compensated by their obscurity — first, you have to figure out who they even are. Second is their numbers — taking out just one of them won't do much. Third is their replaceability — they're even more interchangeable than politicians.

(You can't stop the Machine by popping a few expendable human cogs within it. You've got to demolish the entire institution.)

"stuff" was a typo or autocorrupt

yes

Taking out a congressman

I'm not calling to murder congresscritters, Heavens forbid (neither their staff of course). But at least we may want to discuss their part of the responsibility for the problem, if we perceive it to be the problem? Given that I would define it as "very large" - they have the means to form the system, and they formed the current system as it is now, and they have the power to change it. A single healthcare CEO could probably hire marginally better customer support, and make the rules marginally less strict, but within given regulations and 4% average profit margins, they don't have much space for a radical change.

You've got to demolish the entire institution

You mean the glorious proletarian revolution? If past experiments teach us anything, it's that proletarian healthcare is not going to be better. As somebody who experienced both, I'd like to personally confirm this.

You mean the glorious proletarian revolution?

No. Absolutely not. When I spoke of demolishing institutions, I wasn't referring to the health insurance industry, I'm referring to the institution of Congressional aides. Of "legislators" who don't actually legislate.

But at least we may want to discuss their part of the responsibility for the problem, if we perceive it to be the problem?

Why? To what end? If you want to fix the portion of the health industry problem for which Congress is responsible, you have to "fix" Congress. But, like so much of the US Federal government, the only way to "fix" Congress is to tear it out and replace it with something else. As you note, health care CEOs "don't have much space for a radical change"… and if "radical change" is what you want, the only way we're getting it is overthrowing the United States Government.

So no, I don't mean a "glorious proletarian revolution" in healthcare. The opposite direction, really. The glorious Caesarist reaction when we finally get our Augustus, who ends the Republic.

For example, nobody is angry at this guy: https://x.com/OcrazioCornPop/status/1868084582425170121 - who openly admits at passing healthcare policy by deception, and now we are witnessing the fruits of his labors. Nobody even remembers he existed - and he will be writing the next "healthcare reform", whatever it is, and one after that - or somebody who is exactly like him. Did you ever hear discussing anything about that anywhere in MSM or among those internet people that this week are all healthcare experts?

Why? To what end?

So that sometime, somewhere, somehow we could eventually learn to associate the problems we have with the people we appoint to solve those problems who instead cause even worse problems, and then maybe, just maybe, we start trying to realize maybe there's a better way to do things than just giving all the power to whoever looks most slick on TV and then murdering random rich people because it feels good. They way to solving the problem must go through at least seeing the problem, and I am observing just the opposite - a giant effort to avoid any hint of looking in the general direction of the problem.

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