padren

Honestly I suspect some personal experience has hit home in the health care issue. Sort of like Glenn Beck would be if it wasn't for the lobotomy. If Dobbs had fallen in love with some illegal immigrant who was dragged here as a kid by her parents and 'fell through the legal cracks' he'd probably take a different tact on immigration. In short, I am skeptical this has so much to do with "enlightened objective debate about health care from a non-partisan perspective" and is really just that something hit too close to home for him to tow the party line on. Still - glad to see it, it's gotta have a health effect, regardless of the cause. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It's not a linear metric. It's not like the US is only 3% behind Denmark, but even though they are only 3 rankings ahead the numbers in the report show they are remarkably more cost effective and have remarkably more doctors per person. We also won't measure each system with the same stick - different people have different reasons and different perspectives on the issue, and as such they'll use different metrics. It's not like there are two simple "pro" and "con" camps that collate and organize their arguments before speaking to the "collective view" on their side.

...just waiting for the crackpots behind it to google their own device, and find this thread pop up and come to defend it. Popcorn on standby

The reason this is flawed, and the reason I used lint as an example, is what I call the "white noise effect" when it comes to unproven claims. When you assert a hypothesis and arguments for that hypothesis, you need to run through the standard critical thinking counter arguments. In this case, the argument you are proposing is that it hasn't been proven that prayer doesn't help, therefore you see that as somehow boosting the case for prayer. You need of course to do the logical fallacy checks, but the "white noise effect" is you have to apply your assertion to arguments you yourself consider to have no merit, and see if it boosts those arguments in the same manner as the one you are arguing. I used lint as a "white noise effect" test subject, iNow likes leprechauns it seems, but it's the same deal: test your logic on other arguments and if it is equally beneficial to all of them, then it has no specific merit to your case. If it can apply to all claims that drone on in the "white noise background of random theories" including those that run counter to your claim it has no specific value to your own. Case in point: Where has it been proven that picking lint does not help? Where has it been proven that stepping over cracks in the sidewalk does not help? Where has it been proven that whistling does not help? Where has it been proven that abstaining from prayer does not help? Your argument has as much value to all of those assertions as it does to your own, therefore it has no value at all towards yours. When someone tries to convert me to Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism and uses a 'leap of faith' argument, naturally I apply the white noise effect test to see if the 'leap of faith' argument could also apply to Islam, Scientology, and other religious belief systems that run counter to the one asserted along with the 'leap of faith' argument. If the argument equally applies to those, even though they make claims that run counter to the original - then it has no beneficial merit in consideration of the original claim. That's how you avoid believing the first thing that comes along and can take more care and precision in the information you place value in. Next: To the challenge - it's already been demonstrated your call of fallacy was invalid, and I do get you may have not understood the purpose of the comparison but I do hope it is more clear with what I stated above. Secondarily, you did not actually speak in favor of prayer, just against the comparison. If you want to try again, feel free to post to such. Edit: For the record I do want to be especially clear: You can say it just feels to you like prayer is beneficial, and I would honestly respect that. That is a personal view and not a scientific claim and as long as you left it in the context of a personal view - you'll get no argument from me whatsoever. The moment you try to communicate and share arguments that support your personal view that do not hold up under scientific scrutiny, I will scrutinize those shared arguments. In that light I am not attacking your religious views as those are personal to you and I respect your right to feel anything your life experience tells you is true. I am only picking apart your shared arguments as any information that enters the realm of shared knowledge (regardless of how large or small the number of people with which it is shared) must be scrutinized as vast amounts of miss-information and conflicting information enter the realm of shared knowledge every day and science itself could not function or give us the gains we have achieved as a species without that scrutiny. That vast amount of conflicting and unsubstantiated information btw, is what I call the "white noise" of background information - from which your claims must stand out and apart from. Otherwise you are just another voice in a sea of voices of conflicting claims.

What merits does praying provide over the myriad of other options? Why not sacrifice a goat? Why not fast? Why wouldn't wearing blue help? Maybe, just maybe wearing blue would help your sick loved one - you don't know that it wouldn't. Likewise, maybe wearing red is what it takes. Maybe there is a God, and he hates it when people pray to him and he will hurt your loved one! After all, you ask one person, and they tell you to pray to the Virgin Mary, you ask another, they tell you to pray to Jesus and that praying to Mary is a sin! There are no arguments that favor prayer as a means of healing someone that are any better than when used to suggest that guessing leprechauns names can help someone heal - unless of course you include logical fallacies. I challenge you to come up with a single reason why prayer is better than collecting lint as a means of helping someone heal that is not based on a fallacy. By fallacies, I mean appeal to authority, hearsay, appeal to the majority, failure to prove the negative, etc etc. Would you take that challenge? Logical fallacy. The figure you provide is suspect too, but I don't care to debate that as the claim itself was poorly defined. (Belief in prayer? God? Gods? Jesus?) Science isn't concerned with untestable claims. Science is a tool so people can both learn and share what they learn with others in a very conservative manner. It has to be conservative because data can so easily be tainted. A scientist can have a dream about their mother warning them the stove was left on, wake up, find it on and stop a fire and come to learn their mom died just hours earlier... a very spooky, moving personal experience but it would still be a personal experience. Science wouldn't have anything to say one way or the other - it's outside of the scope of testability. All you'd have is the anecdote of one person, no testable claims, no repeatable tests, no predictions, and no theory that can be vetted. That scientist could ask other scientists for their personal opinion on what may have happened, which could range from supernatural explanations to subconscious thoughts coming out to simply missing that the waking up part to find it on was also part of the dream. But, all those opinions are just that - opinions about a personal experience. None of them can test any of the information provided or do anything scientific with it. Of course it's compatible, it just doesn't make sense how it's compatible to everyone. However, there are scientists who do believe in God here, so I'd say the answer is 'obviously you can do both.' Please don't confuse the fact that, scientifically, there is no credible scientific evidence to support supernatural events as saying there are no personal experiences to support the existence of supernatural events. Personal experiences are very powerful, but highly subjective and invalidateable as there are entire professions dedicated to faking these personal experiences. The fact that there are professionals that dupe people much of the time does not mean all personal experiences are the result of such fraud - it means it is impossible to tell if a believed personal experience is what it appears to be or not. Even if you are right and it is supernatural, the reason you went with that wouldn't be because you knew but because you believed and even that makes you only correct by coincidence - you didn't know, you guessed and got lucky. The end result of all this is: Such things are fair game for personal beliefs, personal experiences, and casual conversations about spooky stuff and what we know or don't know. They offer science nothing to work with however, therefore science has nothing to say on the topic. The only things you can explore with science are clear evidenced cases of fraud, which is why science appears to be anti when it's really just mute. It's not anti-supernatural as it says nothing about supernatural theories. It may say things about faulty supernatural claims - clear failure of logic or outright evidence of fraud, or solid evidence contradicting a claim used to support a supernatural theory. You can say "telekinesis can work because the brain's ability to think is quantum in nature and it..." and science won't say anything about telekinesis - but it may very well have something to say about whether the brain's computational mechanisms are actually small enough to involve quantum factors and thus why that specific explanation of telekinesis is bunk. Someone may see that and say "you so say science says telekinesis can't work" and that would be incorrect, it only says there is no evidence that the brain works on a quantum level and therefor that explanation is flawed.

Wow, maybe my atoms are sick. I'm not even sure how you'd go about addressing health balancing at the quantum level - as soon as you measured just how bad your quantum health really was, you'd no longer know if it was getting worse or getting better! The babblespeak is truly epic in this one - quite the find, although now I need to find some miracle cure that can function as a truly industrial grade mind-bleach to undo the experience of reading all that.

Sorry, but we have made great strides - atheists can adopt a lot more freely now as long as they believe in having one mommy and one daddy.

Sorry sorry - the darn article is from 1970. I completely missed that - my bad.

Is this for real? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html? It's unimaginable. The language in the article is unimaginable. I am simply at a loss for words, is this really what it sounds like?

Well, you can always come to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons, which is essentially what you are saying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What I find so baffling is how they often twist science as a way to describe something, while totally wrapping it in prophetic BS. A planet the size of Jupiter, "well, science does tell us that would be bad... so that event would be catastrophic" and at the same time the question would be... and how did the Mayans know this? Mysticism and channeling or good old fashioned prophecy? All the dark matter, galactic, alignments gamma bursts and what not happily use science to explain some mechanism that sounds plausible, while dressing the whole stinking thing up and side-stepping the real issue: Whatever prophecy or underlying mechanism that this comes to us through is bullocks and has about as much validity as the warnings against breaking a chain letter.

Based on the OP, I'd say the AI level we are talking about would be a self aware system, at which point it would have to be aware it is parsing data and that it's limitations in it's capacity to do so. I think to be self aware you'd pretty much have to be trying to make sense of the world around you, so you'd already be 'interested' in optimizing your means of doing so.

So, could someone just pace back and forth, in front of the school that guy's kids go to with an assault rifle? Could I stand next to him at the town hall meeting site, and ask if he minds having snipers trained on his head, pull out a sheet of packing paper bubbles and follow that question with "Do I make you nervous?" It just seems like a really bad recipe. Especially if anti-abortionists and the like start getting into it.

Maybe there was a

I don't think you understand what is described. The 'bend' I am referring to does not exist as 3D space, because it's 3D space itself that is curved. You can't just tune your 'compass' for a few degrees to compensate and expect you'll be going in the 'real' straight direction.

So your idea is that everything has another side: ergo, the universe is infinite. That's not exactly a lot of foundation, the premise isn't well founded scientifically that I am aware of. Sometimes things wrap and end where they begin. As Ajb said it's a question of topology. It is possible for space to be finite, and what is 'on the other side' is simply described as 'what was already behind you a ways.' Now, I am not saying that means the universe is finite, or that your conclusion is wrong, just that the premise you use to support and draw your conclusion is flawed. If your premise is flawed though, all you have left is a conclusion that is 'an idea' and it becomes no more rigorous than the idea the Earth sits on the back of a multi-dimensional elephant with turtles all the way down.

Why more space, and why a wall? What does this 'imaginary journey' actually try to say? It sounds like you are trying to say the universe must be infinite because you can't conceive of going any distance and having anything other than more space in ahead of you. That could be the case, but I believe there are experiments trying to determine exactly that, having to do with measuring the curvature of space or something to that effect. If space curves enough, it could wrap, and going in any of the 6 directions (up/down/left/right/forward/back) far enough would bring you back where you started, just like the Earth curves and going in any 4 directions (forward/back/left/right) will bring you back to where you started. But your post doesn't really say anything about it that is useful - consider your statement if it was made 1000 years ago about the known explorable universe, ie: Earth. See, simply being able to communicate a concept doesn't convey any credibility as to whether it's sound or not. Using your own words with only a change of topic, we can make an argument that we know to be false becase there isn't infinite sea on Earth. That's why when we share concepts around here, we don't just express them to be read and (hopefully) accepted by others - there are far too many concepts to have the time to do that. We share concepts and the facts that support them, theorize on how to use those concepts to make predictions that are testable - essentially discuss things in a scientific manner. You really need to do more background work and build up your concepts for us to even be able to discuss them effectively.

I too cannot understand how you connect those two factors, so if you could clarify this point I would really appreciate it. Like I had mentioned before, we are only adding one more insurance option which is government backed, and requiring that everybody has insurance of some kind. While I actually do place value on being free to not have coverage - and I don't take it lightly to have that option vanish (I've made that choice myself for many reasons) I also can see the harm it does, and I'm willing to step up if it means everyone will be guaranteed coverage. While I trust myself to be careful with fires, I support the taxes that I am forced to pay to ensure the whole sections neighborhood doesn't burn down due to lapses in coverage. Can you cite how our liberties will be limited by this plan, other than of course the requirement to pay into the health care pool somewhere? In England, you can still smoke and drink yourself to death, despite a heavily federalized system. Even with an entirely private system, we can get pulled over by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet. This liberty connection honestly eludes me, so I genuinely would like some clarifications on your stance.

I'm going to assume the 2-d brain snipe (attacking the opponent, not his argument... very 'higher dimensional' of you) is a metaphor and not literal so I'll leave that alone, but for the record: With whom, do you think you can debate anywhere that will be fine with you making a claim (in this case "Biosphere and human have properties of super-organism.") and simply accept your assertion without challenge because "I don’t want to discuss these properties here" and all that? Are you literally asking for blind faith because while you do have evidence and it apparently is really good we should just take your word for it, since you just don't feel like discussing it? If you want to discuss your idea you need to give us more than blind faith to go on. There are 10s of 1000s of ideas all screaming out there in a din of white noise that need nothing more than blind faith. If you want yours to stand out from that it needs something to set itself apart from the rest: creativity, urgency, the importance of the implications (even imminent world destruction) and all that can be found thousands and thousands of times over. The only thing that sets ideas apart for discussion is credibility through empirical evidence, consistent logic, and where ever possible the ability to make predictions. Otherwise it's: you came, you posted, you left... like 10,000 others before you who's ideas are just as likely to conflict with yours (prove you wrong, you just have to take it on faith since they don't like discussing it with close minded people) as to not... and nothing to stand out from the rest any more than one more ice crystal in a blizzard. I smell a bet. You think there is a 50/50 that the Earth's magnetic field will collapse - what do you think will be visibly apparent should it not collapse? Super auroras? EMP? What 'near catastrophe' will occur if something less than the worse does? It would have to be something that scientifically shouldn't happen (just like the Earth shouldn't blow up) but can be verified. I want to make a bet - if we can agree on something and it does happen - I'll upload a video of myself singing "I'm a little teapot" on the steps of my State Capitol. If we do not blow up and there is no evidence we were in danger of doing so, then you do. Would you be game?

We have advanced technology because we are willing to spend the money - that is not going anywhere. Do you really think someone who makes over 100 or 150k a year who can afford a cadillac plan will choose the government plan instead? Do you think any run of the mill HMO will send you to the Mayo Clinic because, due to the magic of being a private company, it can spend an infinite amount of money on any high tech treatment you want? You will still be able to pay cash at the door if you want. You will still be able to get a very expensive plan if you want. People will still compete to learn how to make medical technology cheaper and more accessible to wider markets and still try to make cutting edge procedures for those whom money is no object. In fact, I don't see how anything will change in the competition department when all that is happening is we are 1) getting "yet another insurance company" that happens to be federalized, and 2) ensure everyone gets covered. All we are doing is fixing the problem of people getting dropped or going uncovered, and those problems do not spur innovation in the medical industry.

Please don't let this derail the conversation but I found the idea amusing and thought I'd share it - I'd love to see an onion news video parodying smug Fox News coverage of this stuff but about the Moon Landing: "Now, an interesting story, some people are saying - and this one is just not going away - that they are fed up being lied to by NASA for over 40 years about land-ing on-the moon..." Complete with angry mobs at a NASA press conference and some old guy shouting in the background "You claim you landed on CHEESE! You CAN'T land on CHEESE! Do you think we were born yesterday??" Like I said I don't want to derail, thought it was funny and some may agree... those that don't I respect that too.

For unintended consequences that run counter to the goals, then yes. Those have to be actual unintended consequences though, as opposed to foreseen ones that were considered trivial, and played out to be as such from their point of view. Doesn't mean you find them trivial but if they do it can't really count against their design.

Fairly libertarian but with some liberal leanings out of practical necessity. I hate the fact a community can force someone to support the local fire department and can't opt out, but doing so would be unrealistic - and in a violent world we wouldn't exist without compulsory support for a unified military. I see all social programs as carrying a cost in that regard and policy makers should be very respectful of that cost and those who get cavalier about building a society in their ideal image really bother me. I do extend the idea of practical necessity as far as socialized health care though, which is far far further than most libertarians would go - the size of government doesn't really concern me as much as the ideals and goals of that government. If the cost that goes in pays for itself in increased opportunities to be individually free, I'll entertain even large government programs if they look good.

Really cool video of the farthest images from Hubble, with distances calculated to show in moving 3D. Some decent coverage of expansion I think:

Actually, the largest issue I have with universal coverage (while I do still support it) is I can't help but to see it impacting our rather open and liberal immigration policies. Canada's immigration policies are often seen as draconian by comparison, but they literally do get 'medical refugees' and it could put a huge strain on their system if they didn't screen so carefully. I do wonder about these secondary impacts.

Maybe you can give us more perspective by telling us other percentage certainties you have: How certain are you that Ronald Reagan was, in fact, a President of the United States? How certain are you that we invaded Iraq? How certain are you that the Cuban Missile Crisis was genuine and not a joint effort political ruse? How certain are you that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Maybe I am naive, but while we don't know how to pay for it, don't we have to see where the dust settles somewhat first, since this is going to shake up a lot of how money currently goes to health care? The way I see it: 1) As a nation, we already spend a ton on health care, some privately, some publicly, and often money is spent without ever being paid for directly - pushing costs all over the place in a very temperamental manner. The last point specifically referring to medical bankruptcies in which tons of collectors have already spent a ton of money trying to collect, followed by lawyers and eventual bankruptcy hearings. Not only does a hospital get stuck with an unpaid bill, but they've paid their collections and legal departments a ton of money to get nothing. When they do collect on someone that just barely avoids bankruptcy, it is still at a high cost - collection companies often take 50% of an unpaid balance of delinquent bills, and that's before they have to resort to lawyers. All these factors drive up cost, as a hospital can't just ignore hemorrhaging money - they have to make it up elsewhere, by inflating costs to cover their losses. I would expect this isn't done in an even handed manner, but usually in the most reliable manner to match the fluctuation in losses. Where they 'make it up' is not in any way guaranteed to be evenly distributed - they could just push it mostly onto senior care for all we know, if that is reliably inelastic enough. I am not saying I have any evidence that it is unfairly distributed now, just saying there is no causal connection that would evenly distribute these extra costs. Of the people who don't pay their hospital bills, it's usually people without insurance that use the ER as their doctor's office or come in after a problem has gotten out of control. So: 2) That, combined with so many other factors that have been unsightly landmarks in our current health care system (people with conditions trying to hide them so they can get coverage, most discussed heavily) the sum costs to everyone are going to be thrown all around. We are taking a huge burden upon the public side of paying for health care, but we are trying to reduce the cost to hospitals (in unpaid bills) and people (fighting litigation, filing bankruptcy, overhead associated with wage garnishing, collection companies) so honestly no one knows where the dust will settle. It is disconcerting that when it settles, we could be very deep in the red - but can anyone really tell us the current cost of the 'business as usual' system we have now? Do we have any idea of how much of an impact universal coverage would have to our national productivity, preventative care, bypassing collection costs and 'tight money management' costs? One thing I can say for sure, having very little money makes life gets very expensive fast. Being short two dollars can add a hundred dollars in NSF fees to your bank account if you have no savings, putting off car repairs leads to more expensive repairs or even accidents due to mechanical failure. All of these things leave less money in people's pockets, whether to spend on taxes to support publicly funded health care, or buy private coverage. So really, the main reason I am not too concerned with the 'how to pay for it' question right now is we have no idea how this will all re-balance out, and where we will be. All we know is it's a horrendous mess right now, and these reforms can make the costs more predictable while at the same time be far more humane and reduce suffering to those currently falling through the cracks. To me, I think that makes it worth a shot - and I do hope to have some serious discussions on the costs as they balance out. Hopefully Republicans will have returned to their fiscally responsible roots by the time they reemerge as a powerful party and can help at that time, but right now we need some plan that even as a 'first pass' solution cleans up some of the mess, and we can deal with the lingering problems from there.