We don't trust Public Health Care. Is this the 1st step in fixing that?

[The Whispering Monk]

Hillsdale College is pretty good at maintaining conservative principles and teaches them to all it's students. Studying the Constitution is required there.

So they've put together a, "Statement on the Ethical Principles of Public Health, on behalf of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom, Washington D.C., August 23, 2022."

If you like them and want to show your support. Go sign the bottom of the webpage (under SOURCE).

Spoiler: Ethical Principles of Public Health

1. All public health advice should consider the impact on overall health, rather than solely be concerned with a single disease. It should always consider both benefits and harms from public health measures and weigh short-term gains against long-term harms.

2. Public health is about everyone. Any public health policy must first and foremost protect society's most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.

3. Public health advice should be adapted to the needs of each population, within cultural, religious, geographic, and other contexts.

4. Public health is about comparative risk evaluations, risk reduction, and reducing uncertainties using the best available evidence, since risk usually cannot be entirely eliminated.

5. Public health requires public trust. Public health recommendations should present facts as the basis for guidance, and never employ fear or shame to sway or manipulate the public.

6. Medical interventions should not be forced or coerced upon a population, but rather should be voluntary and based on informed consent. Public health officials are advisors, not rule setters, and provide information and resources for individuals to make informed decisions.

7. Public health authorities must be honest and transparent, both with what is known and what is not known. Advice should be evidence-based and explained by data, and authorities must acknowledge errors or changes in evidence as soon as they are made aware of them.

8. Public health scientists and practitioners should avoid conflicts-of-interest, and any unavoidable conflicts-of-interest must be clearly stated.

9. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly important. It is unacceptable for public health professionals to censor, silence or intimidate members of the public or other public health scientists or practitioners.

10. It is critical for public health scientists and practitioners always to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences of public health decisions, and to adapt appropriately.

SOURCE

 

[posh-goofiness]

Thoughts in no particular order.

9. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly important. It is unacceptable for public health professionals to censor, silence or intimidate members of the public or other public health scientists or practitioners.

Already a failed principal. The entire Covid fiasco has BTFO'd this into oblivion.

7. Public health authorities must be honest and transparent, both with what is known and what is not known. Advice should be evidence-based and explained by data, and authorities must acknowledge errors or changes in evidence as soon as they are made aware of them.

Ditto to this.

2. Public health is about everyone. Any public health policy must first and foremost protect society's most vulnerable, including children, low-income families, persons with disabilities and the elderly. It should never shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent.

Of course, that means that the affluent will need to be obliged to the less affluent then. Wealth redistribution, in effect.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Already a failed principal. The entire Covid fiasco has BTFO'd this into oblivion.

Ditto to this.

In regards to both of your points here: That's part of what needs to change. Which is why I'd actually recommend you print out the document and take it to your doctor to sign. If they aren't willing to...time to find a new doctor.

Of course, that means that the affluent will need to be obliged to the less affluent then. Wealth redistribution, in effect.

You can certainly take it that way if you want to enable redistribution of wealth. I merely take it to mean that the wealthy can afford their own care, while the Public Health Care render care to the most vulnerable first with its limited resources.

 

[Wargamer08]

You can certainly take it that way if you want to enable redistribution of wealth. I merely take it to mean that the wealthy can afford their own care, while the Public Health Care render care to the most vulnerable first with its limited resources.

Who determines what wealthy means? If the "rich" can be made to subsidize healthcare, why not things like food or housing? How much should they be made to pay and by what mechanism?

This reeks of thinly veiled Collectivism, with for the children as an excuse as if children's health charity isn't both a thing and stupendously massive.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Who determines what wealthy means? If the "rich" can be made to subsidize healthcare, why not things like food or housing? How much should they be made to pay and by what mechanism?

This reeks of thinly veiled Collectivism, with for the children as an excuse as if children's health charity isn't both a thing and stupendously massive.

I'm merely addressing the situation that pretty much already exists...minus just leaving the rich to fend for themselves.

I'd dearly love to see a flat tax with the only exemption being a flat amount per individual.