LuckyR

We are in agreement on the relative difference between morals and ethics (though the appreciation of the difference is not universal). Having said that, please go into further detail on the "difference" you're referring to in your first paragraph.

I'm not seeing your examples as refutations of my comment. You're (correctly) bringing up examples of contractictions within belief systems, which underscore flaws in individual's purported ethics. Not dissimilar to the vegan cat owner in my example. Of course, all of the above use rationalizations to smooth over these internal ethical (actually moral, but many use the terms interchangeably) inconsistancies. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Just a thing.

Oh, I apologize for being difficult to understand, I wasn't trying to equate murder with eating meat, I was illustrating how ethics, unlike other more quantitative endeavors, focuses more on whether ethical standards are breached (or not), than it does on how much those standards are breached. Of course as a secondary issue once the primary question of one's ethical status is determined, especially when comparing two examples of violations of ethical standards, we can debate whether this or that breach is larger, but that's a lesser concern.

Nice try. I did not say not "relevant", I said "not the focus". For example, if on the scale of murder victims created, the "degree" between killing 10 vs killing 2, is 8, whereas the degree of difference between 1 and zero is only one. However ethically the difference between violating the community ethical standard by murdering one is huge, whereas the difference between violating the ethical standard twice vs 10 times, still puts one in the ethical category of "murderer". I don't dispute that you are free to disagree, though most in the community (whose ethical standard is the measuring stick) agree.

Which totally makes sense in the environment forum, but here in the ethics forum, "degree" isn't the focus. Either you support the industrial ranching industry, or you don't.

You're misunderstanding my point. Folks who aren't vegan don't mind that vegan cat owners are supporting the meat industry. I don't think anyone wanted you to shoot the cats as the alternative to feeding them (bird watchers, however may disagree). No, I brought up the point to illustrate the fact that practicing veganism doesn't necessarily absolve one from the purported "negatives" of the industrial ranching industry.

Interesting, but not what I was driving at. The pet food industry accounts for as much meat volume as the country of Brazil annually. Kudos to you, but the pet food industry as a whole is even more slanted towards factory farming than the human meat industry. BTW your post (reading between the lines) implies you're not a vegetarian and thus not the subject of my inquiry.

Several things. First, it is an error to suppose that the alternative for domesticated animals (by and large) should there no longer be a demand for their commercial value, would be reverting to the wild or living out their days as quasi pets. Rather they would, by and large die out (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just a fact). Second, others in this thread have contrasted the life quality of domesticated animals with wild animals, which can be done, but is very misleading since domesticated animals aren't just wild animals on farms. They're different species and aren't interchangeable. Lastly, when I earlier referenced non-ethical reasons for meat consumption, you asked for an example of one. Because it tastes great, would be such an example. And I assume none of the vegetarians on this thread own cats, right?

I got that, though I predicted (correctly) that others would use it as a springboard to make the leap that the "vegetarianism is best" argument has therefore been settled ethically. I don't disagree, though there are numerous cogent non-ethical facets that bear consideration.

While there are several true factoids within this post, none of them can stand alone to definitively guide one to choose veganism. That is, there are many other truths surrounding this general topic that warrant consideration.

When you say "lung cytology" are you referring to bronchoscopy washings (from a patient) or samples taken from a cadaver (typically at autopsy)?

Well originally the definition of gods were that they had superhuman powers, it was only when Modern (monotheistic) religions were invented that gods were required to be omnipotent. So your focus on "most powerful" while common currently, was not a requirement back when the concept of gods was invented.

A pretty good demonstration of "what-about-ism". If you want to demonstrate that adding funding doesn't improve quality, I suppose you're prepared to show that cutting funding of Healthcare doesn't erode quality. Since the main expenditure of any Healthcare system is labor costs, having fewer, say nurses, in a hospital doesn't erode quality of care? Or replacing RNs with lower cost Nursing Assistants?

Yup, as said before, you get what you pay for (within the same system).

Yes you did (compare outcomes), alas doing so presupposes that levels of health are mainly influenced by Healthcare, whereas it is influenced much more (as you later acknowledged) by lifestyle choices/opportunities and genetics. Thus the high US expenditures reflect things like profit taking, the medicolegally caused "defensive" medicine and the higher acuity of their population. I agree that Americans in Denmark might improve their lifestyle choices but if so this only underscores the reality that the US Healthcare system is burdened with treating a more unhealthy population who are destined to 1) require more (and more expensive) care and 2) end up with worse outcomes, despite the extra expenditures. I apologize for being difficult to understand. I'm not "condemning" Medicaid, it does an incredibly tough job pretty darn well and IMO deserves better funding to do even better. My tangential comment was that better funding leads to faster care.

Oh cool. Glad to hear we're in agreement.

You said that "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply to the US healthcare system. I showed that within the US system it does. However it turns out you were only referring to comparing what the US spends compared to what other countries spend. As it happens, if you took the patients that the US healthcare system has to treat (a cross section of Americans) and put them in, say Denmark's system, the cost of treating them would be more than what Denmark pays to treat Danes and their outcomes would be similar to US outcomes. Because it is an error to suppose that healthcare outcome differences in the West are due to heathcare "quality", rather they're due to what the patient brings to the table. Or to put it another way, Danes are, on average healthier up front, than the average American. Just one factoid to ponder: Denmark has less than half the obesity rate of the US. Several things. First, I'm glad you personally have had great medical care across various insurance plans. Though your experience is anecdotal for the purposes of this thread. Second, Medicare (generally for seniors) has a great reputation in the insurance world, thus I wasn't referring to that. Medicaid (generally for low income folks) has many problems. Firstly, many docs don't accept it (as insurance) since it pays them sometimes below the cost of providing care. Second, the average denial rate of Medicaid managed care organizations is more than double that of Medicare.

So in the US those who have (higher premium) "Cadillac" health plan coverage don't get faster, better healthcare than Medicaid? We are in total agreement that when comparing different country's health systems, that how they're set up plays an important role. And I have heard nothing that discounts my assertion that all else being equal, that investing more resources leads to better care.

Well it used to be 15% (before Obamacare) and as I pointed out (and you conveniently ignored) that 8% number could be as low as 1.7% if states run by a certain party would have accepted the Federal expansion of Medicaid (under Obamacare).

Of course Denmark has lower wait times than the NHS. It has higher income and especially capital gains tax rates and a nominal Defense dept budget. It would be criminal if it didn't. You get what you pay for. It's not magic. That's why the UK is so instructive, private pay and the NHS are within the same economic system (unlike a Denmark/UK comparo).

The UK is an instructive model of the difference between private pay and public pay Healthcare. One can easily Google "wait time for joint replacement in UK" and learn the difference between the NHS and private pay. Basically there's no free lunch, you get what you pay for.

Actually since Obamacare only 8% of Americans are uninsured. And they are heavily weighted towards states that chose (for political reasons) to not accept Federal expansion of Medicaid. In states that did, like Massachusetts, the numbers are quite low, Massachusetts for example is 1.7%.

Oh, I see the issue. I take "wealth inequality" to mean a less even distribution of wealth such that if the highest and lowest were identical between two systems but one had a huge middle class, that one would have a more even distribution and therefore less "wealth inequality". But I agree with your postings if using your definition of the term.

I don't disagree. The percentage of the world population in this most dire of circumstances is lower today than in antiquity. In addition the size of the merchant (middle) class has conversely grown since the start of the Industrial revolution.

Not my point (that the homeless are, in fact wealthy), rather that Homeless guy in 2025 who gets appendicitis can go an ER and receive an appendectomy. Alexander, alas has a majority chance of dying. As to Joe Schmo, he uses the vast majority of his wealth. Bezos, OTOH will use a small fraction of his wealth. Of course Bezos is definitely rich, only a simpleton would attempt to say differently, but >90% of his wealth is essentially superfluous and in my opinion that portion, when used to compare eras, is more misleading than informative. Exactly. That is poverty comparable to previous eras. Therefore "low" (in the industrialized world) could be much lower.