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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In his 261 word "manifesto"[1], the UnitedHealthcare CEO assassin cited that the US is 42nd in the world in life expectancy but first in health care spending. Cremieux reviews it in more detail here and makes something similar to the RCA argument that the US spends more because it's wealthier and gets more medical procedures done and offers alternative explanations for why the US has low numbers.
By coincidence, while this CEO shooter drama was going down, I was listening to Peter Attia's podcast where he interviews Saum Sutaria, the CEO of a health care system[2]. He drops the following claim (copied from the show notes):
He further argues that US life expectancy is reduced by factors like cultural issues: gun violence, car accidents, etc. Indeed, the US has high infant mortality but also high rates of teenage pregnancy, which are risk factors for higher infant mortality. This echoes Crimeiux from earlier.
Anyway, I went about looking for a source for the claim that longevity rankings increase as we age in the US and found one in Ho and Preston (2010)
US life expectancy at birth sucks versus peer countries, and even still sucks around age 40. But as you get into retirement years it reverses, and the US eventually climbs to 4th place among the 18 countries
The paper tries to explain this but mostly doesn't find anything satisfying.
One interpretation (not from the study, mine and perhaps the Tenet Health CEO's) suggests if you don't get murdered, or into a car wreck, or overdose, or kill yourself, or your mom didn't attempt a home birth at age 16, you actually have good survival odds. The best in the world. The health care system can actually help you. That's what that $10k/capita is all about.
There's some obvious alternate explanations too. Maybe those extra ten years of life are when you're stroked out and have a pretty terrible quality of life and it would've actually been great to meet a health care system with a death panel that said "mmmm actually, there's no treatment available for this condition. so sorry" and you could die with dignity and your family (or someone's family, or maybe collectively) could have an extra $400,000.
Whatever this is, I think it's pretty clear that the health care system in the US exists and can deliver results. Whether or not these results translate to best QOL is more murky and we can debate that effectiveness. Either way, that doesn't have the same revolutionary zeal!
Coming up for air here, and approaching the
#assassinbaestory from a different angle, at what point can we consider misinformation surrounding this life expectancy vs health expenditure chart as stochastic terrorism? I don't know a single left-of-center person who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together who doesn't allude to this as Exhibit A in every discussion about how corrupt the US health care system clearly is[3]. And it's arguably wrong. And it's now getting people murdered. It's not quite as psychotic and singular as Alex Jones, but it's definitely something sinister. Maybe even more dangerous if it's the start of a trend.people are beating him up for writing such a short and lame manifesto but he might not have intended it as a manifesto, more of a confession
guessing this is the last we're going to hear from a CEO of a health care system for quite awhile, so this was well timed
which isn't to say it can't be corrupt, just, again, the health care system failing to save people from high rates of car accident deaths and also for maybe keeping grandpa alive because their family doesn't want them to die is not exactly a stinging indictment of health care itself
A healthcare system is a system that produces health. If we were talking about the US Baby Boomer Maximization System, or the Senescence Sustainment program then it would be appropriate to consider life expectancy for sixty year olds primarily.
But for health, we should be considering lifespan for everyone. We should also be considering obesity and fitness, whether there's lots of chronic pain, drug addiction, mental illness and so on. Sustaining morbidly obese people in hospital with vast feats of medical engineering is not really what healthcare should mean.
Cherrypicking where the US does best doesn't justify all the areas where it does poorly. Why are so many people on anti-depressants? Why are so many fat or addicted to drugs? Failings of the US health system are root causes for both (bad nutrition advice and improper dietary additives +opiate mass marketing). Being shot can hurt your health just as much as a tumour and while generally police and troops are supposed to deal with that side of healthcare, they clearly aren't doing a great job of it in America. These problems are not solely caused by a bad health system of course, it's massively multicausal and there are other root causes.
I could even buy that US governance institutions are too inadequate to improve health without causing more damage than they fix, so it's best to keep on plugging away and hope for a technical fix. Or redirect energy to reforming governance first.
But defending the strengths of this system shouldn't silence the critics of its weaknesses. I agree that there is a lot of money and technology in the US medical system. They have lots of MRI machines per head. But what is the purpose of all those things if there are cheaper ways of producing more health?
Those things aren’t even necessarily fixable by medical intervention, in fact I think in the case of mental health, better results would be had by de-medicalizing mental health in all but the worst cases. Therapeutic culture has somehow managed to turn 3/4th of ordinary human experience into trauma, while at the same time creating a culture hyper focused on feelings and especially negative feelings as facts. If I were to try to cure depression and anxiety I’d spend more time trying to get the person to understand that bad things happen to everybody, that you’ll get better with time, and that focusing on how broken you feel just makes things worse. And until you start living despite the hurt and the “trauma” (which unless you’re fleeing a literal war zone or horrific abuse, is probably something fairly normal to human life) you just aren’t going to heal.
As far as obesity, while I’d try to nudge our food manufacturers to make better quality stuff, the vast majority of obesity is caused by neglecting fork-put-downs and overeating. You, unless you have a severe medical condition, are capable of simply not eating at every opportunity. Likewise, a lot of other health issues are caused by basically not moving. None of this is mysterious, it’s just that following the treatment isn’t fun. You have to count calories and macros. You have to spend thirty minutes a day doing exercise.
The problem of course is that medicine as a practice cannot do much for these problems except mask the symptoms or do very crude repairs of the damage done. And until we can somehow rewind culture back to the point where people generally took responsibility for their lives rather than turning to others to fix the damage later, you simply cannot make a lot of progress here. The problems are cultural and social. Returning to the ethos of the past, where you learned to keep a stiff upper lip and carry on, and where you took a large degree of responsibility for things in your own life, I don’t see how the medical system can be blamed. It sounds very much like the parents who barely pretend to care about whether their kids put forth effort in school, then get mad when 12 years later, their kid can’t read or do basic math, and now they’re mad at the teacher. The teacher can’t make the child do homework, and unless the child does homework, he’s not going to learn much. It’s too late, the damage has been going on for 12 years and there’s no intervention that’s going to undo what’s been done.
I think most problems in America are not so hard to solve. We’re just losing our ability to knuckle down and actually do the work. We’re the people looking for ways around having to do work. We want gamification of education, because why should we study, it’s boring and feels like work. We don’t want to count calories and macros and stick to a healthy diet because it’s not as exciting as deep fried raviolis and white sauce pasta. We don’t want to exercise. Instead we’re looking for quick fixes.
I'm not convinced that people even need to put down the fork. I can eat as much as I want and exercise very little but remain thin. Mostly I don't eat ultra-processed food, I just eat whole food.
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5277b379-0acb-4d97-a6a3-602774104629/content
Doesn't sound very appetizing! But it obviously is, ultra-processed food is 60% of US calorie consumption: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ultra-processed-foods-calories-american-diet/
It seems very reasonable that eating things full of strange chemicals causes unusual health problems. Circus freaks from 1900 have nothing on the physiques you can see waddling around these days, they wouldn't even make it onto my 600 pound life. And the US is exporting this all around the world.
The obvious retort is that the amount you want to eat is less than the amount fatties want to eat.
Yes but why is that? I never bothered counting calories or exercising any restraint. My willpower is pretty low, all things considered. I barely do much exercise, I guess I walk longer distances than most people but that's about it, I don't go to a gym or anything. I occasionally do some bodyweight exercises, I can do sixty pushups but that's probably mostly because I'm thin. It takes only a few minutes each day for a few months to get to that level and I plateaued since.
My BMI is 20. Australia is a pretty fat country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_Australia
I can only assume that a diet of fruit, good bread, milk and whole foods is superior to a diet of largely processed foods. I have chips and icecream sometimes, I'm not a puritan about these things.
This sounds like humblebragging and I guess it technically is but I think there must be something that can be learnt. Back in the 1960s everyone was like me. They could eat whatever they liked, drink a lot of alcohol and still not get fat like we see today. They were working desk jobs too! They just got sated. I get sated. When I eat a big dinner, I might not feel any need to eat even in the next morning, it doesn't cross my mind. I barely ever feel hungry.
I just don't see how I can be a genetic freak when this is how everyone used to live.
It's probably something in the water, given that obesity rates are lower in the mountains and highest at the mouths of long rivers....
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, I think the steelman for chemicals causing obesity is 'endocrine disruptors changing desires' more than 'microplastics make you hold on to fat'. But for another, everyone in the sixties smoked cigarettes(which does control appetite). Everyone fatshamed. Snacking was very expensive so people didn't do a lot of it. People were just more active in general. Etc, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link