Phi for All

I think you're letting one aspect of our system blind you to all the good it does. For every lazy slob on the dole their are many people who truly need the help that only a national risk pool can accomplish. As JohnB points out, this system we have is SO broken that it ends up inflicting more harm than cures. Just like birth control having an 18-year delayed effect on adult crime statistics, the focus on profit and power that politicians and corporate interests and conflicted private insurance carriers has had a cumulative effect on how our social programs are viewed by the people. Notice how our wars give us more enemies, our prisons give us more felons and our lack of healthcare benefits gives us more indigent people sitting in the ERs? Oh, but that's the absolute MOST inefficient way to care for people! It costs taxpayers in the US in more ways than just money to support an emergency-only type of healthcare.

If insurance was part of your employment contract, your employer would be in breach if he tried to drop it. If your contract was up for renewal, and your employer tried to remove it, wouldn't you negotiate for more wages to cover the costs? I'll try this one last time. What is it about the major US employers that makes you think they're so generous as to give such an expensive "gift" to all their employees? Why didn't the bean-counters talk them into dropping such an obvious "gift" along with less expensive "gifts" like Christmas bonuses and birthday lunches?

This thread is about how belief in the supernatural (things that are beyond what can be directly observed in nature) affected our survival capabilities through natural selection. I don't think an attempt to discredit natural selection is particularly on topic or appropriate here. Further, I don't see how morality in society comes into play either. I might be misreading the OP, but it seems as though we're talking about humans at a stage before civilization truly began. I also consider your statement about natural selection being "a dangerous idea in the hands of the stupid" to be extremely uncivil and uncalled for. I'm reporting your post for this reason.

You came to the right place. Welcome!

Believing in things you can't see did provide a level of defense for hunter/gatherer humans. If you always imagined there was a lion in every shadow, you survived longer than those who didn't because sometimes there were lions in the shadows.

You should start another thread about tort reform. I'd love to tell you why that's something else the corporate world has been salivating over lately. And why it's complete and utter bullshit. As to tort reform as it relates to healthcare, litigation costs and malpractice insurance only account for between 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs, according to insurance industry consultants Towers Perrin. It is not even close to being a major driver of high healthcare costs. You also shouldn't use Texas to support your arguments here. Your lack of regulations keep your insurance costs very high, you have the highest number of minimum wage workers in the US, you have the highest number of uninsured people in the US, and you rank #1 in adults without high school diplomas in the US. I'm sure you're different Justin, but it's easier to pull wool over the eyes of those who don't know any better. Edit: Rick Perry's Texas tort reform only helped reduce doctor's malpractice insurance. So far, insurance for the patients hasn't gone down, so who did Rick Perry really help? Your insurance costs are higher than national average, despite having tort reform for the last nine years. What kind of big impact are you talking about? http://wendellpotter.com/2011/09/the-mythical-benefits-of-tort-reform-in-texas/

Thanks. I've said this same thing half a dozen different ways now to no avail. I suspect I've been accidentally speaking Greek and someone forgot his Babel Fish. There are some companies that give "gifts" to their employees. Free coffee, an employee picnic, a Christmas party maybe. The way to tell if it's a gift or not is to check your employment contract. When it's in writing, like a paid parking permit or your medical insurance benefits, it's not a gift.

People used to be responsible for providing the overland route to travel by car from coast to coast. Just over the past half a century it was decided that we could pool national taxes and build the Interstate Highway System, shortening the time and expense for EVERYONE who travels. The measure passed because Americans felt they deserved it, it was much more efficient and it saved resources, not that they were entitled to it. (Almost) everyone I know calls that progress.

Niiiice. +1

The notification may be possible. I seem to recall getting messages via the notification system on reputation changes when we first switched to the new software. I can't remember if the link took you to the post in question or not, but I think it did. Perhaps this got switched off somehow.

I'm amused that you see this as substantiation. Everyone thinks your arguments are mere proselytizing except you.

I find this argument extremely hypocritical. You attempt to refute what has been explained to you by misconstruing it completely. You upbraid us for not having moral courage when you yourself haven't bothered to study what you criticize. You encourage us to think and act differently when it's abundantly clear you have no concept of what the norm in science is. I suggest you first look up what evidence means to science. Second, reread what others have written here in your thread, there have been many constructive criticisms. And third, please don't assume that what others have worked their entire lives on is mere assumptions. Established science represents the best explanations for various phenomena a planet full of clever people have found.

I think efficiency would be determined by the device that uses it. As we found with gasoline, when we have an abundant fuel source, efficiency in burning it is usually a secondary concern at best. I think it's more efficient than electricity when used in heating or cooking appliances. I've used both and natural gas flame is either on or off whereas electricity has a warm up and cool down period where it's energy isn't really being used efficiently.

That's what everyone tells me! +1

You know, I started the "wit" misdirection trend to poke fun at those who were just openly asking for positive rep, and I can see your point. It honestly never occurred to me that anyone would take it seriously on a site with so many intelligent people. Sorry you were fooled, Ophiolite, but thanks for the rep points! I am removing mine, though. When you're right, you're right.

Ironic Quote of the Week!

I've spoken with some members that tell me they'll come across a post they feel deserves negative rep, usually for insulting behavior, but they know they only have one point and may come across something worse later in the day, so they hold back. It keeps them from using the negative side of the system for what it was intended, to show other members that a post exhibited poor rationale or judgement that reflects on the user overall. The current negative rep system is more of a quantitative approach rather than a qualitative one. To me, the whole system is supposed to nudge people in the right direction by peer pressure rather than staff intervention, which I feel is far more effective in the long run. I wouldn't change the system by much. I'd recommend allowing two negative rep points per day. It would be fairly easy then to see if it caused more abuse or made the system more effective. I certainly wouldn't want it to be accessible for this purpose:

Why would you assume I want to leap to the other end of the spectrum? Do you think I exhibit extremist tendencies?

Good. Thanks for the explanation. It would be great to be able to click on your reputation score and filter the posts that received them, but we'll have to wait for Cap'n to tell us what's possible. We've actually been discussing negative rep points in the Staff sections recently. I don't like the fact that having only one point a day often causes members to make judgements that seem juxtaposed to the rep system's intent. I can also see why less focus on negativity is important.

! Moderator Note Oh yes. This has ceased to be a productive discussion. Thread closed. Aman shah, please stop advertising your blog. We're not here to promote your work.

Mmmm, I do feel smarter. Next time no nuts, please.

Biblical references are OK to use to make points about your faith, your beliefs, your opinions, but you can't use the Bible as evidence to support the religious statements of fact you've been making. Since the Bible is the only book that talks about the Abrahamic God, it can't be used to prove God's existence. In fact, there is no proof of that. And there's no proof that God doesn't exist. That's why it's perfectly fine for you to believe in God, and why it's perfectly fine for scientists to question you when you try to say there is proof for its existence. I think it's important to reduce the gaps in our knowledge without using God to fill them, even temporarily. Of yours? I suppose it's the blind kind of faith you have. It's great for your beliefs but you come here to try and force it on others, to take all the mountains of evidence that science has unearthed and trivialize it by claiming it's all God's work. You take the serious hard work of dedicated, educated, intelligent people and dismiss it with vapid, easy, brainless arguments that pay no respect to the methodology and rules of the forum you decided to join. Why did you join SFN?

I didn't realize members can't see which posts are receiving rep points. What's the purpose in that? I agree with Ophiolite, because it's hard to know how your posts are being perceived when people use the rep system instead of posting just to praise or admonish. Cap'n, is it possible to allow them to see the rep points for a particular post without allowing them to see who gives them?

Soylent Green.

None of it has any evidence that science would find valid. You ARE on a science forum, so maybe you should learn what science considers evidence. A desire to learn would also show the other members that you aren't here just to satisfy some religious agenda.