If you prefer the moral outrage to understanding, so be it. Another way of looking at it is that decision-making is inherently contextual and fuzzy, even self-perpetuating. If it weren't, you could have robots make the decisions.
One can take somfort that in the end, incorrect biases / heuristics should be self-correcting. Companies that penalize groups of people inappropriately will be at a disadvantage to more enlightened ones. But that enlightenment would have to be measured by their overall success. If you want to change the world, prove these attitudes counter-productive, instead of appealing to circular moral piety.
Nonsense. The (pretend) employers of course get that information. But that information is supplemented by the employer's background of knowledge and heuristics about how other such-gendered/experienced people tend to work out over time. It is based on the totality of that information that an actual (pretend) offer is made.
The confusion comes from focusing on the resumes - the (pretend) past achievements of the (pretend) candidates, whereas employers care about their predicted future performance. (Such predictions can involve all kinds of experience, speculation, and biases, not limited to what's in the underwear.)
Imagine your grades exactly matching mine. This would not mean that we would be substitutable in any particular job.
The study was entirely hypothetical. No actual jobs were offered. So the "science data" is... at best, a simulation that stimulates certain political responses.
"you don't think health care should be a for profit industry"
There's plenty of money - and yes, profit - going on in the health industry, if you don't circularly define it away. Like all the parts of health care not covered by provincial "insurance" schemes; like the suppliers; like everyone who is paid by it. All that dirty profiteering can't have tainted things too much.
"I never really got why over the last decades the people of both Canada and Australia have seemingly had governments that are at such odds to their national mindset."
Perhaps that's because a simple "left/liberal/egalitarian" "national mindset" is a figment of the state media's imagination.
But considering that people here would generally trust the state to provide essentials such as unemployment insurance, pensions, health care, etc.... what's wrong with giving the state a little more information about yourself? Hm???
"Publicly funded healthcare systems _consistently_ have better outcomes at lower costs."
That's not responsive. You claimed "... highly unlikely someone would contribute more....", as a comparison of someone being able to choose a public or a private system in situ. Whatever studies may show about differences between different places and times does not inform this, even if they were taken at face value.
"Publicly funded healthcare dates back to the late 1800s (in Germany)."
As they say, the exception that "proves" the rule. In reality, we're talking about the 1930s or later in the modern world.
"You can foresee when you'll need expensive medical care a few years in advance?"
You misunderstand "insurance": it is not necessary or useful if you can predict specific events a few years in advance. I was talking about the connection of premiums (costs to the insured) to the changes of insured risk, as a function of time. Actuaries can speculate plausibly over a few years of the status quo; over decades, too many confounding factors exist to write a contract.
"So... You can't get care from TMA ?"
Did you read their web site at all? It's mostly a lament about how the public system is rationed etc.. They are basically a broker to get most things done by traveling to the US.
"Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside of "the system""
No, it was that the system outlawed competition. Beyond national boundaries, those laws don't apply. This does not mean the system is fine.
"It is highly unlikely someone would contribute more than their otherwise "private" healthcare costs... averaged over a reasonable timeframe (decades)"
What makes you think so? Government health care systems have barely existed for longer than a lifetime, over which demographics and costs have been on a constantly worsening trend. Averaging doesn't make sense like that. With real insurance, one's not left dreaming about the cost/benefits of "decades" of coverage, only a few plausibly forseeable years at a time.
"Since you obviously have neither knowledge nor experience..."
If that is an obvious truth to you, how would you reevaluate your other obvious truths, considering the farcical falsity of this one?
"Ah, I see, you're talking about the rich."... or those who decide to self-insure: i.e., the young and healthy, who may carry no or only catastrophic coverage.
"there's nothing stopping you going out and getting your own private care in countries with public care"
You obviously have neither knowledge nor experience of places where competing private care is outlawed.
"You realize that the insurance industry has a backwards profit motive of other corporations, right?"
No, they don't. In the long term, insurance companies make money from the "float", or slight actuarial or timing differences between premiums and payments. An insurance company that fails to fulfill its contracts (fails to make payments) will chase away clients, if there is a healthy competitive market. To the extent that there is no competitive market, this might be one area for government intervention, perhaps. But to hold that insurance companies are by definition fraudulent is delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
Note the presence of "just" and "of the person applying" in my sentence.
If you prefer the moral outrage to understanding, so be it. Another way of looking at it is that decision-making is inherently contextual and fuzzy, even self-perpetuating. If it weren't, you could have robots make the decisions.
One can take somfort that in the end, incorrect biases / heuristics should be self-correcting. Companies that penalize groups of people inappropriately will be at a disadvantage to more enlightened ones. But that enlightenment would have to be measured by their overall success. If you want to change the world, prove these attitudes counter-productive, instead of appealing to circular moral piety.
"You've repeatedly ignored that point."
Nonsense. The (pretend) employers of course get that information. But that information is supplemented by the employer's background of knowledge and heuristics about how other such-gendered/experienced people tend to work out over time. It is based on the totality of that information that an actual (pretend) offer is made.
The confusion comes from focusing on the resumes - the (pretend) past achievements of the (pretend) candidates, whereas employers care about their predicted future performance. (Such predictions can involve all kinds of experience, speculation, and biases, not limited to what's in the underwear.)
Imagine your grades exactly matching mine. This would not mean that we would be substitutable in any particular job.
Correction, they were *pretend-hiring*.
"she has to somehow negotiate back that $5000 you took off the table on account of her having a vagina"
Could it possibly be that the difference is a personal assessment of future potential value, and not a judgement about genitals per se?
The study was entirely hypothetical. No actual jobs were offered. So the "science data" is ... at best, a simulation that stimulates certain political responses.
What a strange thing to say. The videos/pictures/transcripts I read of tea party events were about as unabashedly patriotic as any.
"you don't think health care should be a for profit industry"
There's plenty of money - and yes, profit - going on in the health industry, if you don't circularly define it away. Like all the parts of health care not covered by provincial "insurance" schemes; like the suppliers; like everyone who is paid by it. All that dirty profiteering can't have tainted things too much.
"I never really got why over the last decades the people of both Canada and Australia have seemingly had governments that are at such odds to their national mindset."
Perhaps that's because a simple "left/liberal/egalitarian" "national mindset" is a figment of the state media's imagination.
"That depends ..."
What does? That public hands are also about $$$? Ask any government that has been having problem extracting & spending enough money lately.
"what's better done by $$$ and what's better off in 'public' hands"
False dichotomy. Public hands are very much about $$$ too.
You mean a constitutional democracy/republic does.
In my defense -- the first page of the linked comments was heavy on insinuation, light on actual decoding work.
Linky please?
... especially of the future.
That a new computer model "forecasts" an event in the past fails to arouse.
Ditto.
But considering that people here would generally trust the state to provide essentials such as unemployment insurance, pensions, health care, etc. ... what's wrong with giving the state a little more information about yourself? Hm???
"Publicly funded healthcare systems _consistently_ have better outcomes at lower costs."
That's not responsive. You claimed "... highly unlikely someone would contribute more ....", as a comparison of someone being able to choose a public or a private system in situ. Whatever studies may show about differences between different places and times does not inform this, even if they were taken at face value.
"Publicly funded healthcare dates back to the late 1800s (in Germany)."
As they say, the exception that "proves" the rule. In reality, we're talking about the 1930s or later in the modern world.
"You can foresee when you'll need expensive medical care a few years in advance?"
You misunderstand "insurance": it is not necessary or useful if you can predict specific events a few years in advance. I was talking about the connection of premiums (costs to the insured) to the changes of insured risk, as a function of time. Actuaries can speculate plausibly over a few years of the status quo; over decades, too many confounding factors exist to write a contract.
"So... You can't get care from TMA ?"
Did you read their web site at all? It's mostly a lament about how the public system is rationed etc.. They are basically a broker to get most things done by traveling to the US.
"Your assertion was that it was not possible to get care outside of "the system""
No, it was that the system outlawed competition. Beyond national boundaries, those laws don't apply. This does not mean the system is fine.
"It is highly unlikely someone would contribute more than their otherwise "private" healthcare costs ... averaged over a reasonable timeframe (decades)"
What makes you think so? Government health care systems have barely existed for longer than a lifetime, over which demographics and costs have been on a constantly worsening trend. Averaging doesn't make sense like that. With real insurance, one's not left dreaming about the cost/benefits of "decades" of coverage, only a few plausibly forseeable years at a time.
"there are private providers in Canada"
Not *competing* ones.
"if you were to travel"
Right, there's an endorsal of the system.
"In which case you're getting at least equivalent - better in the case of no insurance - coverage"
Not really, as such people would be paying more into the system than they should: they are subsidizing the old/sick.
"No, I'm not aware of any country that prevents its citizens from seeking private care."
That is the situation here in the great white up, a travesty, I tell you.
"Since you obviously have neither knowledge nor experience..."
If that is an obvious truth to you, how would you reevaluate your other obvious truths, considering the farcical falsity of this one?
"Ah, I see, you're talking about the rich." ... or those who decide to self-insure: i.e., the young and healthy, who may carry no or only catastrophic coverage.
"there's nothing stopping you going out and getting your own private care in countries with public care"
You obviously have neither knowledge nor experience of places where competing private care is outlawed.
"you generally have at least as much choice"
Seriously? With government medicine, you get what the bureaucrats allow. With private medicine, you can also get what you pay for.
"So something like emigrating then ?"
With government medicine, that's basically the choice - no choice at all. OTOH, with a healthy market, there ought to exist local competitors.
"You realize that the insurance industry has a backwards profit motive of other corporations, right?"
No, they don't. In the long term, insurance companies make money from the "float", or slight actuarial or timing differences between premiums and payments. An insurance company that fails to fulfill its contracts (fails to make payments) will chase away clients, if there is a healthy competitive market. To the extent that there is no competitive market, this might be one area for government intervention, perhaps. But to hold that insurance companies are by definition fraudulent is delusional.