Phi for All

Seriously, why are we discussing this with you then? You're arguing that the current US healthcare system is superior to anything from a foreign country. No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to make any difference to you. I haven't really seen anyone but you defend the same points. You haven't shown why it's better to pay double, even though you can't show that the US system is twice as good. Even if you could get a concession that the US healthcare system was equal to the foreign systems, you're still left defending your right to pay twice as much for it.

I don't see how this is possible. The first bet is "I'll bet you that i have more money in my wallet than you have in yours." If man A has $2000, he wins man B's $1000. If man A has $1000, man B wins that money because he has $2000. How can the man with the lesser amount win everything when he loses the first bet?

I don't think the value it would bring can ever hope to exceed the troubles it would cause.

The first bet man A makes is that he has more money in his wallet than man B. The implied wager is that the winner gets to keep the loser's cash. The second bet is to switch wallets. The implied wager is that both men keep the cash in the other man's wallet. If one man has $1000 and the other man has $2000, in the first bet the winner (the man who had more money) gets all $3000. In the second bet, the winner is whoever had the lesser amount and traded for the higher amount. No matter who it is, the winner of the second bet ends up with $2000 but the loser gets $1000. The net loss is the same with either bet for the loser, but the net gain is better for the winner in the first bet.

You can stay in my ghosthut forever, Xittenn, but I have a no-dead people policy. I ALWAYS complain about crazy demon sex. I get a little jealous of all those extra appendages. And it can be damned uncomfortable when the appendage to orifice ratio is unbalanced. So I need someplace to go to lift my spirits, just a small haunt where I won't get spooked. That's why I boguht a ghosthut.

I didn't "twist" anything. Everything after the part I quoted was only the slippery slope analogy they used about cell phones being made mandatory. My point was that we shouldn't be thinking of healthcare in terms of emergency only. Effective healthcare needs to be preventative and needs to encompass the vast array of individual needs present in a major economy like the US. It truly grieves me to hear this. And it makes me more adamant than ever that we need to stop paying double for insurance that often fails us just when we need it most. Wow. I don't know what to say about your comparing the WHO to the NCPA. The WHO covers an extremely broad array of global health issues. The NCPA covers free market public policy, and only a fraction of their efforts revolve around healthcare, and all of that is focused on squashing policies that might hinder making a profit from the poor health of American citizens. I don't know what you do for a living Justin. Most of my career has been about figuring out how to market products and services to people. Believe me, turning free market business strategies loose on healthcare for humans ensures one thing, and one thing only: LOTS of customers paying LOTS of money for as little as you can possibly get away with giving them. That's business, but it shouldn't be healthcare. I absolutely love analogies but I have to stop using them. At a gut level, I think I use analogies because I don't have the confidence that those I'm conversing with will understand my points without them. And that's not right. The arguments should stand on their own. More often than not on a site like this, analogies don't cover the whole argument and thus confuse the issue. And they can be seen as strawmen, too. Smart people shouldn't need them, and I guess smarter people shouldn't use them.

I read exactly what was given to me. Without all the extraneous stuff, you're left with no clear decision at all. Man A first bets he has more money. This is a straightforward bet, assuming the winner gets to keep the cash from both wallets. But then he changes things by offering to swap wallets. Is man A betting that his wallet holds more cash than man B's? If this is true, why would he want to switch? And in this instance, the winner is only getting the difference between the two amounts of money. The bet has changed from it's original form.

I don't think I can do a better job of ridiculing that analogy than you've done just by posting it. I'll let it speak for itself. But this part that you liked, "Because health care is something we might all need some day in an emergency"? I'm very happy that you and your family enjoy such fantastic health that you only need health insurance for emergencies. I truly hope that no one you love has any health problems, but I want you to know that I'm completely willing to pay a nominal amount in taxes, with the risks spread out among millions of my fellow taxpayers, to make sure that your family, especially your kids, are covered by a single-payer insurance policy that won't deny them when they need it most. And I'm probably like you, I haven't had much to do with doctors and hospitals in my life, thank goodness. But to me, good health is such a basic necessity of modern life, like clean drinking water, roads, libraries and education, that I'm willing to do my part as an American to help all of us enjoy living and prospering in this great country. We can pull together or we can pull ourselves apart. Yes, they are. From their website, regarding their president, John C. Goodman: Does John sound impartial and objective to you?

Scattered thoguhts. Scattered tohugsth. Scattered shottugh. Scattered ghosthut. Thoughts about ghosthut. Scattered ones.

Does switching the wallets mean that now man A's wallet belongs to man B? If so, then switching completely changes the focus of the original bet. And if switching means man B no longer has access to the other things in his wallet besides money, then he shouldn't take the bet. He needs his ID. Also, man A specified "money", which is different than "cash". A platinum credit card or a bank debit card represents a lot of "money", technically. And riddles sometimes depend on technicalities.

Auto, home, even life insurance put a fixed dollar amount on what is being insured. Health insurance can't do that. How can we know what will happen to us health-wise? This is why I think health insurance should NOT be part of a private, market-based business model. There are way too many conflicts of interest there. So, people who disagree with you get rude comments instead of conversation? Are you feeling hateful about this community too?

I would like to know the exact methodology used to determine "the way the cookie crumbles".

I think I've heard this very cusp before.

Needless to say,

As iNow points out, this analogy is beyond flawed. The success enjoyed by other countries with national healthcare systems is not a fictional entertainment, it's a well-documented fact. And the point is not to "set our standards by the rest of the world", the point is that when you're having trouble with something, it's wise to look to others who've been successful and learn from them, see what they're doing right and adapt it to your own situation. We aren't too proud to admit we can learn from foreigners, are we? Is that the problem here, that as Americans we must do everything from scratch with no help from outsiders? If so, we are wasting one of the most valuable resources we've worked so hard for, the ability to pool our knowledge with the rest of the world to make us even better.

Some people have a talent that they aren't interested in cultivating using the combination iNow mentions above (although I agree with his list). For those who truly utilize their talent, I would add a fair amount of drive and determination to what he said. Natural ability combined with a desire to cultivate that ability don't necessarily go hand in hand. I often wonder if privilege doesn't dampen this kind of desire. How many musical prodigies had everything they needed at their disposal and how many had to expend a great deal of effort just to find someone to let them practice on their piano? I think desire is stronger when there is a struggle.

+1. Can I use this in my signature, please?

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.