I will never understand how folx like him think working 80+ hours a week is a flex I know for d*mn sure he not WORKING 80+ hours a week Rocket River
I may or may not do analysis and make reports for people in policy-making decisions that may or may not be about multiple topics, one of which may or may not be healthcare equity. And we may or may not have found that replacing the word "equity" with "fairness" tends to be received better. It is pretty funny/stupid how we may or may not have to keep changing the words we use to not raise the ire of those on the left or right so that they might be somewhat receptive to our work.
It's not just replacing words, though. "Fairness" and "equity" have very different meanings. "Equality", as in equal treatment before the law, is good. "Equity" means forcing equal outcomes. In healthcare, the term "equity" has become a focal point of debate, particularly when it is distinguished from equality. While equality aims to provide all individuals with similar access to healthcare resources, equity seeks to tailor resources to achieve similar health outcomes across different groups. Here are specific criticisms of using equity as a guiding principle in healthcare: 1. Focus on Equal Outcomes Over Individual Needs Healthcare equity often implies that different groups should achieve similar health outcomes, which can lead to resource allocation focused more on group metrics than individual patient needs. This can be problematic because health outcomes are influenced by complex and highly individualized factors, including genetics, personal health behaviors, and social circumstances. Forcing similar outcomes across groups can result in policies that overlook these individual differences, potentially misallocating resources. 2. Resource Redistribution Risks Neglecting High-Need Individuals Equity in healthcare often involves redistributing resources to close gaps between demographic groups. However, this can lead to situations where patients who might be in high need (but belong to a group perceived as having an advantage) receive less attention, while resources are allocated to meet equity targets for other groups. This redistribution can unintentionally harm individuals who may not fit into prioritized categories but still require critical care. 3. Potential for Reduced Quality of Care When healthcare equity aims to equalize outcomes, there’s a risk of lowering standards or restricting personalized care to ensure that different groups reach similar health outcomes. For example, focusing on metrics like hospitalization rates or readmission rates across demographic groups might encourage healthcare providers to avoid admitting patients to meet targets, potentially compromising the quality and appropriateness of care. 4. Incentivizes Outcome Manipulation Over Genuine Health Improvement Equity-driven targets may inadvertently encourage healthcare providers to “game the system” to meet mandated outcome measures rather than genuinely improve patient health. For instance, if a healthcare system sets quotas on health outcomes to achieve equity across groups, providers might be incentivized to discharge patients sooner, avoid diagnosing certain conditions, or allocate resources based on demographic status rather than actual medical need. 5. Diverts Resources from Preventative and Long-Term Care Solutions Equity in healthcare often necessitates reallocation of resources to close gaps in outcomes, which can divert funding away from preventative or long-term care initiatives. Short-term interventions aimed at equalizing outcomes may overlook root causes of health disparities, such as socioeconomic factors or lifestyle influences, thereby failing to provide sustainable improvements in public health. 6. Complexity and Cost of Implementation Implementing equity in healthcare requires intensive resource tracking, data analysis, and allocation adjustments to measure and address differences in outcomes. This complex and costly endeavor may reduce efficiency and draw resources away from direct patient care. Administrative costs associated with measuring and enforcing equity initiatives can detract from funds that could otherwise support broader patient access and improvements in healthcare infrastructure. 7. Risk of Inadvertently Reducing Patient Autonomy Equity initiatives often assume that specific groups should achieve particular outcomes, potentially leading to paternalistic policies that guide patients toward predetermined health results. This approach can conflict with patient autonomy by de-emphasizing individual choice and focusing on group-based goals instead. Patients might feel pressured to follow prescribed treatments or interventions designed to achieve equitable outcomes rather than being supported in making health decisions aligned with their own values and preferences. 8. Potential for Divisiveness and Resentment When healthcare systems prioritize outcome equalization, it can lead to perceptions of favoritism or unfairness, especially if some groups appear to receive more attention or resources than others. This perceived preferential treatment can foster resentment among patients and healthcare providers alike, potentially undermining trust in the healthcare system and leading to divisive attitudes rather than fostering a culture of inclusivity and mutual respect. In summary, while equity in healthcare aims to close health outcome gaps, it can inadvertently introduce inefficiencies, reduce individualization, and create pressures that conflict with patient-centered care. Critics argue that a balanced approach focused on equal access, coupled with targeted support where it's needed most, may better serve patients without compromising the integrity or quality of healthcare services.
The Babylon Bee wrote an actual joke. I'm always surprised when that happens. In other news the Onion bought Alex Jones' Infowars. That should be fun. https://apnews.com/article/onion-buys-infowars-alex-jones-6496f198d141c991087dcd937b3588e9
Not going to happen. DOGE is just a friendlier version of their previous acronym RAGE - Retire all government employees. The guys pulling the strings were extremist libertarians before taking a weird hard right turn. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-influence-rage-project-2025 “I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” This “piece of advice” is more or less identical to a proposal Yarvin floated around 2012: “Retire All Government Employees,” or RAGE. As described by Yarvin, RAGE’s purpose is to “reboot” the government under an all-powerful executive, a sort of debugging. Yarvin sees elections as ineffective methods for political change because, while the head of state and their political appointees may change, the career bureaucrats (who, in Yarvin’s view, are really calling the shots) stay put. “If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictatorphobia,”
You mean like this past hurricane season when Trump was on the ground in NC and other places, donating his own time & money, bringing in tankers full of fuel and organizing other fund raising to help those people in need while Kamala was fund raising for her campaign in SoCal .... and sending $60+billion to Ukraine while US citizens affected by the storm got $750 IF they were lucky? Joe: we don't have any FEMA money left! I kinda like the way Trump communicates with the masses directly on social media on a regular basis rather than thru traditional media .... The media can't misrepresent his statements that way.
Yes, I know the difference between equity and equality. Come on, man. I'm not 10. Besides, the word that may or may not have been used was fairness. What I am saying is, when sending stuff to politically-driven policymakers, people use Find-Replace in Microsoft Word to change specific words so as to not have the intended audience for this Word document immediately recoil and reject all of its findings. It literally is just replacing words. Happens in both directions, left and right.
Do you agree with her? (In her defense, I don't think she even understands what she is talking about.)
I'm not going to watch 2 minutes of her giving a speech on something she was told to pretend to believe. I'll just go ahead and assume that I don't agree with much of what she's saying.
This is one of the experiments from Trump 2.0 I am interested in. The federal government does a lot of things it shouldn't. I have little hope that the execution will be surgical instead of a butchering, however.
