is that really true though? there are clear differences in agency, individual freedom, and motive. in one case, the state is punishing people because x. in the other, the state is not compelling other people to pay for something. these are fundamentally different. enough that i don't by that such is beyond the ability for anybody, even those affected, to grasp.
Yes, it's true, from the perspective of the victim.
Roughly when discussing 'genocide' we look at two/three things (once we've determined that there is an at-risk cohort) when weighting it.
- Is it a government sanction or a removal of support? They're 'obviously' different things, but from the perspective of the victim, it doesn't really make a difference if their lives are made worse.
- Is the observed 'intent' to help or hurt? We will argue and argue and argue about this, but the intent matters to all of us outside people.
- Finally, is it something government agents are doing or is it merely loosing citizens to do things? This can be brought into the first point, as a removal of protections.
You keep wanting to make it an economic analysis, which gets complicated quickly because the analysis really should include cost off-setting as 'profit'. Getting all transactions performed at the private/free-market level is not guaranteed to be the most effective or most efficient solution. With these treatments, the majority of the 'profit' is not in the form of increased output but by a reduction in other costs. But it's still a no-brainer, just like an early filling is better than a later root canal. No paper-profits, but definitely paper savings.
Now, obviously a culture can only afford so much health services, and Florida does have trouble
. But in any fair world, we use some type of cost-benefit analysis. If treatments meet the threshold, then we try to include them. Some treatments are out of reach, and El_Machinae includes his usual (zero-impact) mantra of "you have to fund the research!". I haven't delved into the statistics, and it is definitely hard to do so (because the science is hella political), but you'll find that there's a tendency to 'be logical' and exclude savings from the calculation in Conservative analysis. That will but up against people who actually like efficiency AND helping people. But when the targeted removal is this
targeted, you know it's not about 'resources'. Or, at least, to look for other biases very aggressively
There will be a time when a treatment needs to be titrated, and that is when it's suddenly over-subscribed rendering previous calculations non-viable. We removed doctor's ability to prescribe Ivermectin because we lost confidence in a doctor's ability to make their own best-judgements during a crisis. We also see this with metformin literally being useful all over the place
. Sometimes medical interventions are in the early stages of discovery, when p-hacking is causing all types of non-real results.
When the thread was still discussing 'genocide', I asked if the Taliban was currently genociding Afghanistan women. I do notice that NATO decidedly removed supports for Afghan women. We didn't like the cost (we often decide other people aren't worth it) but we didn't have the 'intent' to loose monsters on them. But we knew that it would happen. My question will mean more to Canadians than to Americans, I'll grant, because Canada consistently underperforms on our foreign aid and