pull down to refresh
142 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 4 Sep \ parent \ on: Trust the science, but I'm gonna manipulate you with emotion and sentiment Politics_And_Law
Here's a more short and sweet version.
For many services today we have review sites.
- Yelp
- Open Table
We all know they have flaws. Some are better for one thing than others. These also exist for things like supplements which are largely unregulated by the US gov.
Labdoor is the one I'm most familiar with.
The idea would be that there would be a massive market for consumer directed review sites for treatments. There would also be a huge market for a resource like this for medical professionals. The idea that something so important is best done by the state is absurd to me, but I realize it isn't to most people. I didn't always see it this way.
It might be hard to imagine but in a less centralized world I can see how companies could compete for doing testing and review or products. Today we know how quickly the market turns on a company that acts poorly. Cancel culture is toxic but the truth is that companies try to avoid bad press where they can.
I think people should trust the FDA and CDC about as much as they would trust a private company. So I'm not saying I would blindly trust the private industry. I'm saying it would be better to have options. Multiple groups competing for trust.
review sites
Ah! Yes that could work, but I have 2 issues with this:
- I'm a bit skeptical of reviews because many are gamed 1
- it's a surveillance nightmare
I feel we'd need something with a precise audit trail that doesn't involve people self-doxxing their medical issues. I know many good, morally grounded physicians and specialists that aren't in it for the gains, maybe there ought to be a role for them? Augmented with proper expert systems, maybe? Idk.
The idea that something so important is best done by the state is absurd to me, but I realize it isn't to most people. I didn't always see it this way.
For me personally, the problem starts with too many people, including many my age (Gen X), are expecting government to basically fix everything for them, because they voted so now fix my shit. But, as you say, the problem is often that government policy actually incentivizes much of what is wrong today, so "more government" isn't going to fix it, and "different people in government" is unlikely to either. But you or I can't make people let go of that idea, they'll have to do it themselves - I've decided long ago that all I can do is free myself from it, talk to people about it, but this won't be fixed in my lifetime. 2
I didn't see it like this in my early 20s either. I've learned a lot since.
Multiple groups competing for trust.
Or competing for results! The main issue may be the protection under the law, that's something that RFK iirc wanted to do something about.
Footnotes
-
One of my friends has a sidegig as a "professional reviewer": getting hired by manufacturers to test and write a great review, and get free products on top. You write a bad review, you're less likely to get hired. The incentives are off there too. ↩
-
I might get China-trolled once more now, as happens any time I write something about governance, but so be it. ↩
reply
My description was in broad strokes. I'm sure people smarter than me would figure it out. You problems with it are valid. Obviously it would way different from simple review sites. My point is that it's not impossibly to imagine a different non-monopoly way.
The "review" sites would likely be testing / study based. Just done by an series of independent groups. Not imagining some surveillance based system on patients.
Anyway, the market has a way of coming up with creative solutions to problems.
100% agree with you on the problem. Government is expected to fix stuff a different the idea of voting to fix stuff is pretty homeless. Not sure I'd single out gen x there though. Multiple generations have had this idea.
reply
lol, I can't type on my phone. Such a boomer
reply