Phi for All

I have to admit that though I read the buttacup threads, I had missed when you changed names to Xittenn. Since name changes are pretty rare, I didn't realize you were buttacup. Forgive me, please.

Well, you're in an area that makes better barbecue than rational thoughts. In many big cities, cities large enough to have colleges and universities (that aren't religiously affiliated) there are great numbers of better educated people who have learned to look rationally at our society. This is where the intellectual revolution needs to start, but we need better media outlets and a leader who has no ties to corporate concerns. In Denver proper, I see a lot of hopeful bumper stickers: If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran. Let's Fix Democracy in this Country First. Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by the Elephants!

Private insurance costs more because businesses need to make a profit. But healthcare insurance is antithetical to normal business models. You pay the business for future needs, holding funds that you'll be counting on when the time comes, but this particular business uses part of those funds to pay people to deny your claims. You pay for the service but it's in the business' best interests to keep as much of that money as possible. They're supposed to provide healthcare funding, but they're better off if you drop dead. What other business is hoping their long-time customers die quickly? Funeral homes don't count. All insurance is a risk pool. Pooling together member monies for individual needs to minimize the risks. Part of the risk is that you may never need it, or will need a smaller amount than others. Insurance is a gamble, but one that many people feel is worth it.

Justin, I really feel you're unaware of exactly what employer-based health insurance is. You keep claiming that these medicines are being payed for by our employers. Medical insurance is NOT paid for by your employer, as much as they want you to think that due to the control it gives them. Employers are allowed to treat it as a cost of doing business, so it's tax-deductible, but it's NOT considered a taxable compensation, so they get a double deduction. They come out completely ahead and THAT'S why they do it. Make no mistake, it's part of your compensation, the money is YOURS, it's not theirs, and it's compulsory that it go towards medical coverage. Here's a good article that questions whether it's really even a good system anymore: http://economix.blog...e-worth-saving/

So rigney, does this mean you would support an initiative to start a government sponsored risk pool system that would offer substantially lower rates on medical insurance to everybody, a system that would be dedicated to 1) meeting the healthcare needs of all policyholders, 2) reducing administrative costs through sound business measures, and 3) paying on claims to doctors in a normal, timely fashion (net 30-60 days)?

Absolutely not. I don't think it's too late. Very little is beyond repair by extraordinary measures. To me, it's very simple. Business does what it does, which is make money. If they want to do business in our country, they need to abide by the terms of their corporate charter. It's up to our government, and therefore the people of our democracy, to set the standards, rules and regulations by which the corporation can operate. Corporations will always do whatever they can to make more profit. They've been allowed to bend the laws and rules their way for far too long and they must be reined in. We have to strengthen the regs and review the charter system to bring them back in line. Too much of the money they are growing fat on is taxpayer monies, not profits from their normal market business. Of course, they will kick and scream and threaten and bully. We can't listen to their rants, because eventually they'll figure out that it's costing them too much money and they absolutely still want to do business in this country and with our government. So they'll capitulate, and then start scheming all over again on how to grow their profits back.

Any magnet is only going to have about 20% of its pull strength available against the shearing forces you'll have from the wind against a surfboard on your car roof. You need to have the magnets coated so they don't scratch when forced sideways instead of pulled upwards. How much weight is involved in the board and the system of bars? How fast do you want to be able to drive? Are you removing this whole apparatus every time you arrive at the beach?

My apology still stands, even though you ignored it.

The horses got top billing in that project, but since glue isn't specifically mentioned, I suppose they might have used some royal duct tape. Men to unroll the tape, horse's teeth to rip the piece off....

You really set a horrible tone with that "axe to grind" line earlier. The bad taste still hasn't left my mouth. But I'll admit it was wrong of me to let it color my interpretation of your "shocked" comment. It seemed to me that you were commenting on Sandra Fluke testimony in an unnecessarily sarcastic manner. I apologize if I mistook your intentions. Rush Limbaugh effectively turned the whole argument into one of paying for women to have sex, and since so many of his dittoheads concurred, that's the tack I decided to argue against. In this instance, the heart of the matter is not what the drug is supposed to do, it's what it's actually being used for. In both cases, the drug allows people to have more sex. And every time we allow it to happen, we're giving up more of our freedom. Have you stopped to consider what allowing an employer to make decisions about your compensation based on the employers religious beliefs could lead to? We have laws against discrimination, and this new bill seems to allow a select group of people to float above those laws. What's next? "You're fired because I found out you didn't have your kids baptized. If you want your job back, have it done by next Sunday." Don't you see where this could lead? You can't allow people's right to practice their own religion extend to other people, you just can't. Your reasoning would allow employers to conduct mandatory religious services during working hours because their belief requires them to spread the gospel. It would allow them to fire someone for wearing a Star of David or carrying a rosary. Again, health insurance is done at the employer level because it's much more efficient to take the money out before the employee puts it in their bank account. The system ensures that medical issues are covered as much as they can be. This is NOT something an employer should be allowed to interfere with. It's not theirs to play around with, it belongs to YOU, not them. It starts with birth control but could extend to many crucial areas. Should an employer who is a Christian Scientist be allowed to deny your insurance because it's paying for your child's desperately needed operation? If it happens even once, part of our humanity and our being American will die. Why does the bill give them the legal right to do it if they aren't going to do it? In your own words, "I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage". What happens if a wack job like Santorum becomes president? Won't that make wack pretty popular?

Good idea, because so far, there is no evidence there. I think your mother is smarter than YOU think she is, because the sound of a big dump truck in a parking lot would get most people's attention. Even if they didn't look around for it, it's very likely to make them stop or at least slow down.

More unworthiness. I don't know why this issue forces you to such depths. On a brighter note, even John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona, sees that this bill is completely wrong: http://www.youtube.c...bed/vsoXd7JNZdk

Sexual orientation does matter in social situations. It affects the way we converse with others, it governs some of the ways we interact and it plays a part in how our normal attractions are displayed. But ultimately, intellectually, sexual orientation shouldn't matter much to people who aren't actively pursuing one another sexually. If it still does, then perhaps there was more desire than at least one side was willing to admit. Does that make sense? Could some of those who beat you have been angry at having their attraction to you somehow betrayed by the truth? I've always wondered what makes someone so angry at LGBT people that they would resort to violence or even disdain. Why does it matter to them so much? Can it really be just peer pressure? It's tragic that we're not educated better at a young age to accept everyone as people, all of us flawed people who need the cooperation of each other to do more than just survive. As Appolinaria mentioned, it's getting better, but slowly, and in too many regions the progress is practically imperceptible. I applaud your courage now for sharing this extremely personal side of your history. I curse those who made you suffer while expecting to be treated fairly themselves. I weep for the Xittenn I know who had to endure all this yet still managed to be an exceptional person. And I jump for joy that you're here with me to learn and teach, sharing what you know and accepting me for my flaws too. Vous êtes magnifique!

Welcome back, man. Don't ever do that again!

Humpty Dumpty was an idiot to rely on horses using glue to help him.

psych

! Moderator Note There is no fraudulence or critical infraction here. Moontanman quoted a Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity and zorro quoted one on Michael Behe. The two give different reference numbers for the same court quote: ""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Moontanman's article is reference #2, zorro's article is reference #54, not the #2 reference he states is fraudulent.

Gomez Addams makes vile and disgusting beer with dry ice.

It's funny that you're using this as an argument.

! Moderator Note Sorry, due to problems with new joiners linking to spam or advertising, your link has been removed. Please post an overview of your idea here so it can be discussed. Also, since it's a new idea, this thread is being moved to Speculations, to prevent any students from viewing it as accepted science. Thanks for your understanding.

This is a really, really excellent point. And with this in mind, I totally see the hypocrisy in allowing one and not the other. I think you're missing the issue here. Men are using Viagra just to have more sex, but only some are using it for medical reasons, the same as women and the pill. I'd say the two issues aren't really separate at all. Wow. THAT was unworthy. I understand about the heat of the moment, but still.... You're stacking the deck by misstating the element jeskill included. Both men and women are using these pills for their intended use, and both men and women are NOT using them for their intended use. The real problem here is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control, but they don't have a problem with men using Viagra even when they don't have any medical reason to do so. http://health.msn.co...age-the-culprit 5% of men over 40 and 15% over 70 can't possibly account for the market Viagra and its competitors have. But this article might account for the discrepancy: http://www.subboard....89323175554.asp Employers who provide health insurance are paying for men to have more sex, too. Since the central issue in these new laws is not wanting to pay for women to have more sex, why can't you see that these issues are the same? Dude, I think your responses are the ones that sound overly emotional in this thread. I suspect there is something underlying all this, since you're normally very rational. Sorry, but that's what I see.

You didn't really listen to what zapatos and Moontanman were saying. It's not about how nice you worded anything, it's that last apologetic sentence you tacked on. Coming here to rant is not "trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible". That's like trying to understand sports by going to a women's gardening club. We're more than happy to discuss what you already know or think you know, but this is a science site and you're going to get called on your shit here. Oh, and welcome aboard!

From iNow's Rolling Stone article: I predicted a few years back that this would happen. After reading some articles about privatizing education and corporate lobbying being so closely tied up with lawmaking, I envisioned a future where a high school graduate would be given an opportunity to go to college and have a corporation help pay his student loans if the student agrees to take a certain approved curriculum and then work for the corporation for five years once he graduated. It would all sound great, education and guaranteed employment. And then the corporation could offer a down payment on a home if the graduate would work another five years (of course, the corporation would own the housing development). The deals would just keep coming, and the employee would face some huge penalty if he tried to buy himself out of the deal (it would be fairly easy to unofficially blackball the guy from working for another corporation - "I see here you left corporation X after they put you through school and helped you buy a house - not very loyal, are you?"). Scary stuff, indentured servitude. We'll need help this time, I think. I fear it's too late to just stir up a block of voters and rally others to the cause. We need as many people as possible. Or a really charismatic, rational independent politician with no ties to corporate interests. And is bulletproof.

You don't think it might have been because the dump truck in the parking lot made a HUGE amount of noise and gave a HUGE profile in her peripheral vision? Those are pretty big HUGE clues.

Is that why all the new recruitment posters show sailors only from the waist up?