Live data from Hacker News

EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

washingtonpost.com

151–160 of 197 posts

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did not try eliminating government from healthcare. In fact many of the high cost of private payments arise from regulation or a tragedy of the commons situation introduced by government (i.e. ER required to take everyone but with no answer how to pay).

Even if we just let the pesky poors die, the US healthcare system would still be more expensive on a per use basis than the rest of the world. Now sure, the absolute amount spent would probably be lower if we just assumed that people that couldn't produce paperwork to prove they could fund their ER visit didn't deserve to live. If you prefer zero taxes and zero life expectancy for anyone unfortunate enough to need li…

Wait which is it. We have a "private" system where we save "the pesky" poor and regulate licensing, insurance, provide medicare/medicaid, have a quasi-public system for ER where private payers fund those who won't pay, or we don't? You just switched entirely to some soap box about why we actually do have a bastardized private-public system and then damned me for pointing out the very false basis that you presumed because it was "intellectually dishonest" for me to point out your argument was intellectually dishonest.

Your premise was we have some kind of private system; my thesis is the uncovered poor would be better off with that than whatever it is we have now where they can maybe go to the ER "free" but otherwise pay a gazillion dollars in regulatory and other imposed costs if they actually try to get some prophylaxis.

If you want to say universal healthcare could be better than whatever we have now -- sure I won't disagree with that. Right now we have about the worst imaginable public-private bastardized system replete with deep regulatory capture.

>If you prefer zero taxes and zero life expectancy for anyone unfortunate enough to need lifesaving treatment they can't afford, that's a perfectly valid preference

... this is not my thesis at all, as you're relying on "can't afford" being at the level it is now where the poor are being billed for all manner of things they wouldn't be in an actually private free market and you're also relying an an absurd premise there will be no charity or any other options for them. For instance, in the Philippines I could just walk into a private pharmacy and buy penicillin essentially no questions asked to treat strep throat on the private market for ~half a day's local wages. (Yes Philippines have public healthcare and hospitals but you're not gonna get that meaningfully in some rural barangay). In USA it takes me 1-2 days wages to treat strep throat because I must go to a doctor to write me magic piece of paper that say I will not go in a cage for having a prescription drug, pay all his regulatory overhead, pay regulatory overhead for a lab, then go to a highly regulated pharmacist and then buy my antibiotics from probably the highest-barrier industry in the US through an anointed company and supply chain blessed by the government. I am much better off having cheap, but non-free antibiotics to treat strep than having to wait until it becomes Scarlet Fever and going to the ER for "free" or being taxed into oblivion to get "free" antibiotics that are then administered in the most bloated and uncompetitive way by government to the point I give up other necessities to pay the tax.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#152
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because of the First Past The Post voting system that is used in the US, which means winner takes all. If you want to understand why the US seems so uniquely politically divided, then you will understand once you understand how FPTP voting works and how it inevitably leads to binary politics. Most countries have a voting system that leads to broader representation. US politics will always be black and white and…

It's a problem in Canada as well. I believe FPTP's issues are exacerbated by modern developments like social media, but it's just a hunch

In most Anglo-Saxon places that inherited FPTP. Some places like Australia have made changes that make it better. It is possible.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but part of what I'm seeing is exactly the left pulling their heads out of that mess, while the right is only digging in deeper, both on similar time scales.

Interesting point. I've generally intuited that the left would have carried on down that road were they to win the last election, but I could be wrong. And there has been a bit of a recoil from that kind of behaviour, so you're right about that.

They were already starting to pull back from the worst of the cancelly stuff starting a few years ago. It only took a few years before they realized that a lot of it was blatantly self-contradictory (e.g. broad representation in media is impossible if people are only "allowed" to tell "their own" stories). And they might also have gotten the hint that they were scoring a lot of own goals.

A lot of the other stuff, like actual policy, they're still pretty dug into. But IMO there's a greater proportion of that stuff on which they're just correct, so that's kinda respectable for me.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but part of what I'm seeing is exactly the left pulling their heads out of that mess, while the right is only digging in deeper, both on similar time scales.

> Yeah, but part of what I'm seeing is exactly the left pulling their heads out of that mess I'm not seeing that; not yet anyway. I expected to see that after the disastrous election that demonstrated just how fringe some of those vocal views were, but I did not.

It's subtle at best in "vocal views". I'm getting this mostly from casual conversations.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. I've generally intuited that the left would have carried on down that road were they to win the last election, but I could be wrong. And there has been a bit of a recoil from that kind of behaviour, so you're right about that.

They were already starting to pull back from the worst of the cancelly stuff starting a few years ago. It only took a few years before they realized that a lot of it was blatantly self-contradictory (e.g. broad representation in media is impossible if people are only "allowed" to tell "their own" stories). And they might also have gotten the hint that they were scoring a lot of own goals. A lot of the other stuff, li…

Likewise, I think a lot of the problematic stuff came from legitimately good ideas. They were just co-opted by bad actors, so to speak.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#156
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem in Canada as well. I believe FPTP's issues are exacerbated by modern developments like social media, but it's just a hunch

In most Anglo-Saxon places that inherited FPTP. Some places like Australia have made changes that make it better. It is possible.

We've consistently voted against this kind of progress in Canada for some reason, but I agree, it is possible.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad idea. Let's start off with the first point "They are just easements on private property" That's what most public roads are. They are still owned by the public (the government) and maintained by the public (the government). Where I'm from, we have plenty of dirt and gravel roads just like this. Once every 10 years or so the county comes in and re-gravels them. They are mostly only ever used by private in…

Honestly I will just thank my lucky stars most people believe this fiction you present, because it's keeping the more libertarian areas cheap and without too many busybodies. It seems you've not heard of public access private easements or private trash service, and you haven't learned how to shoot a bear. I pay like $50/month in property taxes and that's basically exclusively for public school and college, which whil…

Surely you realize this only works in low-population-density areas, with minimal economic disparity, and probably lots of self-sufficient property protection processes.

None of those factors are possible and/or desirable, in cities. And cities are necessary things.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts rarely punish agencies for contempt and trust erodes, but shame no longer works and two cases aren’t proof of a systemic collapse.

Those ‘two cases’ were from the first months of this term - needless to say there have been many further cases since then. And more to the ‘systemic collapse’ point, Appeals Courts staffed by Trump-appointed flunkies are gutting the contempt proceedings and the Supreme Court is refusing to step in.. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna223873

Fair, but linking more cases doesn’t automatically prove systemic collapse either. Appeals and the Supreme Court setting boundaries is still part of how separation of powers works, even if you dislike the outcomes. The deeper question is whether courts still have effective levers to enforce compliance, and right now contempt looks more symbolic than binding.

Re: EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

#160
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way it is? Let me explain. The USA is big, but China bigger. If the USA over optimizes on reducing greenhouse gas today, at the expense of our long term economic and world power, China, who cares for less about preserving the world will continue to destroy the world and claim the most power simultaneously. So while we can reduce OUR footprint by taking ourselves out of the game, the world still loses. So now try…

> prior commitments like the Paris accord were engineered to harm us while allowing China to dominate Who engineered them to harm us? You’re saying there’s a powerful pro-China cabal that designed the Paris accords on purpose to harm us and benefit China? Come on..

Yes
Post reply on HN