Health insurance companies are already describing themselves as the only barrier protecting people from unscrupulous doctors recommending unnecessary treatment. Sorry. I trust my doctor more than I trust the insurance company.
Practically, for them, in the short term: no alternative. Not in general. Obviously there is a systemic solution, but that would require Congress to govern rather than enable.
Listening to black metal to cheer oneself up does neatly summarize where we are today. Great piece, and I've heard from doctors about how much they dislike insurance companies too. Dr. Glaucomfleken has been commenting on it for years.
The killer could be a character straight out of Kim Stanley Robinson’s book, The Ministry for the Future (except that the terrorists in that story are eco-terrorists). The book’s dedication contains a quote by Fredric Jameson, (Robinson's doctoral supervisor) who wrote that "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism."
The only thing I could slightly disagree with is the narrow focus of only "health care CEOs" in terms of who may be facing pitchforks. I have no idea how long it might take, but if our current course does not waver for many decades from now, I really have no doubt it will eventually come.
James, can you please read the following comment related to your post with Gideon on “detransitioning”, I can´t comment for not being a subscriber and I am certainly not subscribing, I think it is important and with original contributions of mine:
Well, medications are withdrawn, as far as I understood, most of the time because of severe sides effects based on relatively small sample collections of clinical cases.
So, it would not surprise me then, what happened now: The NICE no longer recommends transitioning treatment, meaning no Physician should provide it because there is no evidence to support such treatment.
It is a treatment with no evidence of benefit. As poorly as I understood. It would be at best anecdotal. Giving powerful hormones in supra physiological doses with no proven benefit to Children sounds atrocious to me. Specially for something that is not a medical disease: there is no biology, no physiopathology, no histopathology, no molecular pathology to it.
Two wrongs don´t make a right: Comparing drug withdrawal in other situations, considering this is medical vs non medical, trans anything has not been proven beyond doubt as a Biological Disease, to withdrawal of transitioning treatment does not say anything specific, good or bad, about transition treatment. It looks a fallacy of relevance at least.
Even comparing withdrawal rates of one disease with another does not say anything specific about withdrawal in each condition. It outlines withdrawal as a broad phenomenon, even general, but it says nothing specific about each condition. Looks a synecdoche to me, superficially.
Second nothing mental and nothing trans has a Scientific Theory behind it. It can´t, it deals with immaterial things.
Claiming it is somewhat emerging as an order from the Brain does not make the Mind visible, at best it will be a Black Box. The imaginary parts of the mind can´t be put into a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers. So the mind is not an order. Its parts are still invisible.
Claiming its the cuircuitry does not addres circuits are symbols the same as words. Words for emotions are irrational, can´t be used in syllogisms necessary for coming up with hypotheses as conclusions of Scientific Arguments from beyond doubt statements about reality, facts, that constitute a Scientific Theory.
Empiricism does not apply to anything Mental, correlations in empiricism require a physical logic to the correlation, a simple logical if p then q does not work in empiricism. Empiricism is not a truth table, probabilistic logic is a red herring when applied to pretending to study the mind.
In empiricism the then connection between P and Q, even if probabilistic, a number between 0 and 1, the empirical connection between the correlates has a physical logic, not an abstract logic as Alice in Wonderland logic: time gives logic to a chronometer, gravity to a weighting scale, and space to a ruler.
Empiricism in Mind "Studies" do not have that Physical Logic, they cannot have it since the Mind is immaterial, and questionaries, and psycho tests depend on intersubjectivity, not on subjectivity. They can´t be objetive because what they pretend to measure is immaterial, invisible and unmeasurable.
I have four posts, at least, detailing what I commented here:
But acting on such paraphernalic thinking not always happens, I am not inducing anyone to murder another Human, on the contrary, but people are lazy, and sometimes incompetent to carry on such... desires. So there are barriers to acting as feared.
But, on Physicians, I think they need to explain themselves, and their predecessors, among others on how they contributed to the current situation, by at least providing context to their rhetoric:
You can kill your way to anything. Look at the US independence and Civil wars, or if you want individual acts Charles 1 and Louis xvi, or if it has to be murder (all murder is extrajudicial btw) Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who also demonstrate that the result may not be immediate.
This is my real name, to rebut charges of edgelordship
My solution to ‘the entire entrenched healthcare system across a country with 350M people and more money than God being completely unfit for purpose’? That will have to wait for a future 27 part series.
yesss you totally owned me! i just am trying to understand what we can do if “they will not change”. it’s a totally hopeless mindset and not something most people are willing to submit to. the millionaire&billionaire CEOs are completely blind to the human suffering they perpetuate, so how else can it be brought to their attention? what are we supposed to do? what is the moral distinction between “legal” mass murder by health insurance companies and “illegal” shooting someone dead in the street?
Health insurance companies are already describing themselves as the only barrier protecting people from unscrupulous doctors recommending unnecessary treatment. Sorry. I trust my doctor more than I trust the insurance company.
I do not think this sentiment is uncommon.
You said, “But there is no alternative to fear.”
Yes, there is!
Under Universal Healthcare, eg in Norway, there would never be any reason to murder a Healthcare executive! cf: https://open.substack.com/pub/egberto/p/what-healthcare-looks-like-in-norway?r=f0bj9&utm_medium=ios
Practically, for them, in the short term: no alternative. Not in general. Obviously there is a systemic solution, but that would require Congress to govern rather than enable.
Listening to black metal to cheer oneself up does neatly summarize where we are today. Great piece, and I've heard from doctors about how much they dislike insurance companies too. Dr. Glaucomfleken has been commenting on it for years.
Just remember every doctor complaining about health insurance in public has a private opinion, and those are generally harsher.
I have a source inside the physician community, so hear those opinions often!
You have a very entertaining way of getting your point across. Thanks for writing this.
Well, you know, when it’s on your mind…
The killer could be a character straight out of Kim Stanley Robinson’s book, The Ministry for the Future (except that the terrorists in that story are eco-terrorists). The book’s dedication contains a quote by Fredric Jameson, (Robinson's doctoral supervisor) who wrote that "It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism."
The only thing I could slightly disagree with is the narrow focus of only "health care CEOs" in terms of who may be facing pitchforks. I have no idea how long it might take, but if our current course does not waver for many decades from now, I really have no doubt it will eventually come.
James, can you please read the following comment related to your post with Gideon on “detransitioning”, I can´t comment for not being a subscriber and I am certainly not subscribing, I think it is important and with original contributions of mine:
Well, medications are withdrawn, as far as I understood, most of the time because of severe sides effects based on relatively small sample collections of clinical cases.
So, it would not surprise me then, what happened now: The NICE no longer recommends transitioning treatment, meaning no Physician should provide it because there is no evidence to support such treatment.
It is a treatment with no evidence of benefit. As poorly as I understood. It would be at best anecdotal. Giving powerful hormones in supra physiological doses with no proven benefit to Children sounds atrocious to me. Specially for something that is not a medical disease: there is no biology, no physiopathology, no histopathology, no molecular pathology to it.
Two wrongs don´t make a right: Comparing drug withdrawal in other situations, considering this is medical vs non medical, trans anything has not been proven beyond doubt as a Biological Disease, to withdrawal of transitioning treatment does not say anything specific, good or bad, about transition treatment. It looks a fallacy of relevance at least.
Even comparing withdrawal rates of one disease with another does not say anything specific about withdrawal in each condition. It outlines withdrawal as a broad phenomenon, even general, but it says nothing specific about each condition. Looks a synecdoche to me, superficially.
Second nothing mental and nothing trans has a Scientific Theory behind it. It can´t, it deals with immaterial things.
Claiming it is somewhat emerging as an order from the Brain does not make the Mind visible, at best it will be a Black Box. The imaginary parts of the mind can´t be put into a one to one correspondence with the natural numbers. So the mind is not an order. Its parts are still invisible.
Claiming its the cuircuitry does not addres circuits are symbols the same as words. Words for emotions are irrational, can´t be used in syllogisms necessary for coming up with hypotheses as conclusions of Scientific Arguments from beyond doubt statements about reality, facts, that constitute a Scientific Theory.
Empiricism does not apply to anything Mental, correlations in empiricism require a physical logic to the correlation, a simple logical if p then q does not work in empiricism. Empiricism is not a truth table, probabilistic logic is a red herring when applied to pretending to study the mind.
In empiricism the then connection between P and Q, even if probabilistic, a number between 0 and 1, the empirical connection between the correlates has a physical logic, not an abstract logic as Alice in Wonderland logic: time gives logic to a chronometer, gravity to a weighting scale, and space to a ruler.
Empiricism in Mind "Studies" do not have that Physical Logic, they cannot have it since the Mind is immaterial, and questionaries, and psycho tests depend on intersubjectivity, not on subjectivity. They can´t be objetive because what they pretend to measure is immaterial, invisible and unmeasurable.
I have four posts, at least, detailing what I commented here:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/beauty
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/in-essence-at-its-core-what-makes
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/stop-talking-about-neurodivergent
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/no-thingnothing-trans-is-real
And two to lighten the mood, Scientific Comedy with educational flair at high school reading abilities:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/sci-and-math-are-having-a-conversation
Thanks James, great Post. With the other Dude, but annoying since I can´t comment.
As narrated it does look bleak to me.
It is a risk I think.
But acting on such paraphernalic thinking not always happens, I am not inducing anyone to murder another Human, on the contrary, but people are lazy, and sometimes incompetent to carry on such... desires. So there are barriers to acting as feared.
But, on Physicians, I think they need to explain themselves, and their predecessors, among others on how they contributed to the current situation, by at least providing context to their rhetoric:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/please-professionals-in-something?r=4up0lp
Great post, I laughed at the beginning quite a lot.
You can kill your way to anything. Look at the US independence and Civil wars, or if you want individual acts Charles 1 and Louis xvi, or if it has to be murder (all murder is extrajudicial btw) Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who also demonstrate that the result may not be immediate.
This is my real name, to rebut charges of edgelordship
what’s your solution then?
My solution to ‘the entire entrenched healthcare system across a country with 350M people and more money than God being completely unfit for purpose’? That will have to wait for a future 27 part series.
yesss you totally owned me! i just am trying to understand what we can do if “they will not change”. it’s a totally hopeless mindset and not something most people are willing to submit to. the millionaire&billionaire CEOs are completely blind to the human suffering they perpetuate, so how else can it be brought to their attention? what are we supposed to do? what is the moral distinction between “legal” mass murder by health insurance companies and “illegal” shooting someone dead in the street?
Brilliant!
Expose the corruption at all dimensions of the spectrum.