Why some people still don't want to wear mask?

[EdwardA]

There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.

High level people involved in campaigs or a specific party are the worst "spinners" there is. That's their job...to spin a positive point of view on the issue for their side. It's a career choice that they do for life, and extremely rare that they change sides or become even a little neutral.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Just a couple of quick points. First, I don't think @dvcochran had ever read that article before he posted it. Couple of things make me think that. One, I don't think it says what he thinks it says. And two, it was published in 1986. While I think much of what's in it is still relevant, it's not a contemporary article by the NIH, and many of the specifics it discusses are literally 30+ years out of date. He was desperately googling anything that he thought might support his position and came up with this.

The article goes into some depth about where we are at in 1986 with regards to the following 6 specific ethical issues specifically related to the American "for profit" healthcare system. I encourage everyone to read it, because while it doesn't give you an accurate sense of where we are now, it will definitely show us all where our current mess came from.

The most serious ethical criticisms of for-profit health care can be grouped under six headings. For-profit health care institutions are said to (1) exacerbate the problem of access to health care, (2) constitute unfair competition against nonprofit institutions, (3) treat health care as a commodity rather than a right, (4) include incentives and organizational controls that adversely affect the physician-patient relationship, creating conflicts of interest that can diminish the quality of care and erode the patient's trust in his physician and the public's trust in the medical profession, (5) undermine medical education, and (6) constitute a "medical-industrial complex" that threatens to use its great economic power to exert undue influence on public policy concerning health care. Each of these criticisms will be examined in turn.

The only difference between then and now is that the Overton window has shifted. In 1986, the idea of a single payer system was considered completely unrealistic. however, fun fact, Medicare was originally envisioned to expand to cover everyone in the USA. It was just undermined by some partisan politicians at the behest of the insurance industries.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.

Yep. High-Five Not only are they there, but lately it seems as if they have been getting more on the show lately. Sometimes I can't tell the difference between the republicans and the democrats on that network. Sometimes I'm shocked to hear that some of them are republicans. A lot of them sound like some of my Republican friends who are more towards the middle. Sometimes my republican friends think I'm actually republican. It just blows their minds when they find out that I'm not.

I get the same thing with religion. I had a Muslim tell me that that he thought I was Muslim because of some of the believes and ideas that I shared with him. It blew his mind too when I told him I wasn't. I think a lot of things should be like that in general. To avoid from getting into the political realm. It should be like 2 people from martial arts who see and understand punches without any negative perspective on which system it came from.

If martial arts were a political system. Wing Chun debates would the dysfunction that we often see. Not saying the system is dysfunctional. The debates are about who is Pure and who isn't, and how one Wing Chun Stance is right and the other Wing Chun stance is wrong. I haven't heard much of that from the Wing Chun guys lately. So there's hope lol.

 

[EdwardA]

That's why I go look for the sources. I'm not sure how you are searching on google. but what saves me time is to type what I'm looking for and then type a reputable organization. So if I'm looking for something about Covi-19, I type the institutions with some credibility. This usually leads me to secondary organizations who had source links in their article that go directly to the information that I'm looking for.


I agree with that. I'm not a fan of lobbyist. They often drown out the concerns of citizen and try to have influence with the government so that it benefits them. Some issues I can see a need for them to have some input, but that input should be limited. It shouldn't be a "24 hour a day push" to get things to bend their way as a business.

I don't work in that field but my idea would be 20% push for business needs and 80% push for citizens who are also my customers. The better off my customer is the more money my customer will be able to spend. I've owned a few businesses in the past and it's always the same for me. I want people to have jobs and make enough money so that they can buy more of the things they want. My customers are just like me. When I have more money I'm able to save more money and buy more things. When I make more money, I don't spend less. I spend less when I don't have money and I'm not able to save anything because the money that I do have goes to expenses.

Rich people follow the same pattern. When they make more money they buy more things and can save more money. So for me, a broke customer is bad for business.

I spent almost my whole life working self-employed, for wealthy home or property owners. When they had more money, they did more work...and they treated me like family.

Here's something to stetch your intellect. It took me five years to understand this technology. Written buy a guy that was highly awarded for inventing this technology before anybody else was using it. Not for discussion in this topic tho...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

[Steve]

High level people involved in campaigs or a specific party are the worst "spinners" there is. That's their job...to spin a positive point of view on the issue for their side. It's a career choice that they do for life, and extremely rare that they change sides or become even a little neutral.

Agreed. "Spinners" or not, they tend to work on campaigns for candidates they happen to agree with. The point isn't that they weren't "spinners" (though that's something that could be debated). It's that they aren't liberals/progressives.

For example, Nicole Wallace hosts Deadline: White House every day. She worked for Jeb Bush, then on George W. Bush's presidential campaign and what his communications director, and then on McCain's presidential run as a senior advisor. Whatever else one might say about her, she has always been a Conservative Republican.

And she hosts a show on MSNBC.

 

[EdwardA]

Agreed. "Spinners" or not, they tend to work on campaigns for candidates they happen to agree with. The point isn't that they weren't "spinners" (though that's something that could be debated). It's that they aren't liberals/progressives.

For example, Nicole Wallace hosts Deadline: White House every day. She worked for Jeb Bush, then on George W. Bush's presidential campaign and what his communications director, and then on McCain's presidential run as a senior advisor. Whatever else one might say about her, she has always been a Conservative Republican.

And she hosts a show on MSNBC.

Many of them however are middle of the road...called RINOs by Conservatives.

 

[Steve]

Administration in any organization runs the risk of being shady. It's not an hospital thing, it's an administration thing. I sure people say the same things about their own Jobs. I know I say it about mine. I complain with co-workers about certain things and the complaints are always about upper management's administrative decisions. I did the same thing when I worked in government.

People in the administrative department of an organization sometimes believes that they have to "cheat" in order to get things done. Most people on the front line know that there's no need to cheat. If you have an accurate understanding of your company then you should be able to make the necessary arguments you need for funding.

The fact that administrators may try to game a system is no secret. Look as US government and you'll see it. It is equally true "that employees may try to steal money from the company.". It doesn't mean that's what going on. It's a possibility that always exists. It's nothing new. If politicians are worried about money being missed used then you simply add necessary requirements, aka regulations, that hospitals must meet before they get the money. But there's a sector of U.S. government that doesn't like regulations. I

If they want less regulations then they shouldn't get made when people start gaming the system. But in that same article it sesm that they actually looked at the budgets of multiple hospitals and discovered that the hospitals that they checked weren't doing what the government offical stated that they might do.

At the risk of being a broken record, I can completely understand that in a hospital being run by a business, you'll have a natural conflict between the doctors trying to treat the patients and the administration who are beholden to the shareholders.

I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimate issues you raise with regards to complex regulations. But regulatory oversight alone doesn't cause the issues you're talking about above. It's a fundamental schism between the mission of the facility and the reality of maximizing profit.

 

[Steve]

Many of them however are middle of the road...called RINOs by Conservatives.

It's a circular logic. If you turn the radio dial all the way to the right, every other station is going to appear left. I mean, the middle looks pretty liberal to a fascist. Right?

 

[JowGaWolf]

At the risk of being a broken record, I can completely understand that in a hospital being run by a business, you'll have a natural conflict between the doctors trying to treat the patients and the administration who are beholden to the shareholders.

I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimate issues you raise with regards to complex regulations. But regulatory oversight alone doesn't cause the issues you're talking about above. It's a fundamental schism between the mission of the facility and the reality of maximizing profit.

I totally agree with what you said. Regulatory oversight can't fix everything nor should it. There just has to be a good balance between business and "citizenship." If it's too heavy on the "citizen end" then the business doesn't make profit. If it's too high on the business end of things, then the business doesn't make a profit.

Companies have moved away from "The customer is always right" to "Building a relation ship with the customer". As a consumer, I notice that my complaints with businesses now come off more like me talking to a friend who has shorted me change. I now see some businesses and an organization that is trying to help me do whatever I'm trying to do. I'm not so quick to blow up at them, unless they are just really bad and I feel that I was intentionally ripped off.

 

[EdwardA]

It's a circular logic. If you turn the radio dial all the way to the right, every other station is going to appear left. I mean, the middle looks pretty liberal to a fascist. Right?

You can't understand the point of neutral research, otherwise you would have said Marxist on one side and Facist on the other. Derogatory terminology toward one side blows a reasonable discussion.

 

[Steve]

You can't understand the point of neutral research, otherwise you would have said Marxist on one side and Facist on the other. Derogatory terminology toward one side blows a reasonable discussion.

I'm too tired to fix this for you.

 

[EdwardA]

I'm too tired to fix this for you.

No worry. I don't expect you to... .I doubt you can anyway. It would probably be a waste of time.

 

[Steve]

No worry. I don't expect you to... .

I'm beginning to think you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Here I'll take a stab. When I said that everything looks left when you're all the way to the right, can you tell me how you got neutral research out of that? I don't understand why you think the far left has anything to do with Nicole Wallace or this discussion. Are you suggesting she's a Marxist?

 

[EdwardA]

I'm beginning to think you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion.

Here I'll take a stab. When I said that everything looks left when you're all the way to the right, can you tell me how you got neutral research out of that? I don't understand why you think the far left has anything to do with Nicole Wallace or this discussion. Are you suggesting she's a Marxist?

You used liberal to describe one side and Facist to describe the other side. Did you forget that? Go back and look.

 

[Steve]

You used liberal to describe one side and Facist to describe the other side. Did you forget that? Go back and look.

I think you should look at it again. You didn't understand the point.

 

[EdwardA]

I think you should look at it again. You didn't understand the point.

I understood, I'm just extremely against using such a derogatory term like that one. I don't regard it lightly. Ever watch Shindlers List? Pretty serious subject.

 

[Steve]

I understood, I'm just extremely against using such a derogatory term like that one. I don't regard it lightly. Ever watch Shindlers List? Pretty serious subject.

I don't take it lightly either. We agree it's a serious subject. And I'm still not sure you understood my other post.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

[Insert standard reminder about politics here.]

Carry on.

 

[EdwardA]

I don't take it lightly either. We agree it's a serious subject. And I'm still not sure you understood my other post.

Your statement was about points of view. That's pretty simple. I only used both terms to equate the two opposites....tho Stallin probably killed more people than anybody in history.

 

[Steve]

Your statement was about points of view. That's pretty simple. I only used both terms to equate the two opposites....tho Stalling probably killed more people than anybody in history.

Okay. I'll say the same thing a little differently. When you're a fascist, everything else looks like Marxism. Better? And make no mistake, the USA is flirting dangerously close to fascism. I'm not sure our democracy survives another 4 years.