(In the best Ed McMahon voice I can muster) You are correct, Sir! Health care is not required for survival, although it could be required to maintain a healthy individual. I never said health care was required for survival.
The differentiation between wants and needs was what I used to determine how much/type of treatment was needed in order for a person maintain health. You gave a list of things someone might want to do in order to be healthy. I believe becoming a dolphin was one of them. I am simply saying that becoming a dolphin is not required for a human to be healthy. I might want a cannon on my arm, but it isn't going to make me healthy, and in actuality, it is probably going to be detrimental to my health.
Health care seems to be a interesting adaption for certain social animals. Communal wound licking by canids and primates come to mind. I would assume that it has something to do with the realization that if you aren't healthy, then you won't be able to get food, water, shelter, or air. Which of those, the first and second, might be shared by the group as a whole. (That's just me guessing).
The one I did find interesting (and more realistic) was the idea of someone wanting to become stronger. I immediately thought of gym memberships. Health insurance and care doesn't pay for gym memberships but it does impact health. I don't think that health insurance or care should require free gym memberships, but under your definition of "full medical care" it seems to just because "someone wants it". But the idea of becoming stronger is an interesting case because our current health care and insurance system does cover cases of physical therapy, which is generally used help some get back to a certain state of health. So in my definition of full medical care, I would include that as part of the definition.
Reading some of the responses to your post, I think people are missing your point. So. I am going to rephrase it so that they might understand.
The summary compares apples to oranges. It compares the sentence which the rapists ACTUALLY received to the maximum sentence that the hacker MIGHT receive. The rapists MIGHT have received a much stiffer sentence than they did and it would be a travesty of justice if the hacker DID receive a sentence longer than that received by the rapists.
It simply means it encompasses the current level of standards.
Which in turn is an obfuscation for "we'll have a bureaucracy decide what you want or need". Having everyone pay for their own healthcare is just as much a "current level of standards" as that.
Actually, I was thinking more of doctor's determining the level of care per their protocols. Maybe in a stretch, the legal definition of "standard of care" would work. If that falls under your definition of bureaucracy, then yes, bureaucracy would decide it. If, however, by bereaucracy, you government, that was not my intention. But your senses are right in that government does, unfortunately, get involved in such matters.
No, I don't think of a need as a strongly desired want. A need is something that is required for survival (food, water, shelter, air). If you subscribe to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, he mentions psychological needs (which I would assume dolphin would fall under in this case). (Wikipedia's Need page is an interesting perspective on the subject, though I don't necessarily agree with it).
Obviously, we could imagine someone having that need, but given our current reality, I can only think that if someone told me they had a need to be a dolphin, I would assume they suffering from some sort of neurosis or delusions . Obviously, this could change. Perhaps if we lived in a Waterworld type scenario, I would think otherwise.
And no matter how much of a softspot the movie Waterworld has in my heart, I can't help that this debate has digressed when I start coming up with Waterworld references. You certainly bring up good points with economics and the ACA. I wish you a good day!
Or if we were able to reach that rather huge goal, it wouldn't be the end. A large portion would want to look prettier, be stronger, smarter, etc than the next person. That's an arms race without limits. Others might have extreme health care goals, such as becoming a dolphin or being able to live in hard vacuum.
Sounds like your are confusing wants and needs. I agree that we have unlimited health care wants, but we don't have unlimited health care needs. In our current world, there is no need to becoming a dolphin. Actually, if you were to undertake that transformation, it would probably undermine your health as opposed to improve it.
I guess we could get really philosophical about what "full" actually means, but we have to interpret what the AC was saying when he stated full medical care. You seem to be arguing that full medical care involves anything you could possibly want when it comes to medical care. Current medical care doesn't pay for gym memberships, which would, in theory, make someone stronger. It sounds like under your definition of full medical care, we could possibly cover tattoos (because someone might want to look prettier). I fail to see how this would have to do with medical care.
I guess you could ask him/her what exactly was meant by full medical care, but I think it is disingenuous to state that the poster mean full medical care to include any kind of care and augmentation to the heart's desire.
Most of the time in debates, you give the individual the benefit of the doubt as to the meaning of their argument until proven otherwise. With your logic, it is like going into a job interview after seeing a posting that mentions "full benefits". It seems to me you would expect the employer to other every benefit that you could possibly dream of. I realize that you may want catered lunches, babysitting services, health insurance, paid vacations, a pet monkey at your desk, a personal slave, and who knows what else. However, that is not what "full benefits" typically means. It simply means you get the total benefits of what is offered by the company. This works out the same for full medical care. lt means you get the full amount of standardized care.
This seems to be incongruous with the way "full" is typically used. In this case, full doesn't mean whatever your imagination can think of. It simply means it encompasses the current level of standards. When you work a full-time job, it doesn't mean you work 24-hours a day. It means you work the complete standardized allotment of hours.
Compared to what? You need to play that "numbers game", what we traditionally call "economics", because you have limited resources and unlimited needs. No one can have "full medical care" because that is impossible to support.
I think you are being overly, how should I say generous, by interpreting "full medical care" to mean "we will do anything and everything we can to cure someone of any disease that they have at any time". I don't interpret full medical care to be quite that extreme of a claim. I think doctors often have to make that call where it gets to the point that there is no more that can be done to cure the person of their disease, so they have to let nature take its course or what have you. You could argue that this is an economic decision, where they are making a call to not treat the individual because it will cost too much money for not enough return in quality of life. But it isn't a purely monetary decision. It doesn't revolve around money, but rather return on quality of life.
But it seems as if you are claiming that we have unlimited needs for medical care and thus requires unlimited funds. I don't think this is the case. I disagree that we have unlimited needs. Ultimately, the biggest constraint is time. There are only so many health care professionals and only so much time that is available to treat and be treated. I could spend all my time going to doctors to get treated for whatever ailment-of-the-day I come up with it, but it comes at an opportunity cost of me working, sleeping, recreating, etc.
So why should we spend so much money on a service that is guaranteed to fail?
I might be interested in limited medical care, but there, I'd limit it to things that have a substantial return on investment like vaccinations or treatments for curable medical conditions in young people.
I feel like you have a flaw in the logic there. Just because we eventually die, doesn't mean it is guaranteed to fail. We, as in our bodies, are guaranteed to fail, but that doesn't mean the treatment fails. The treatment can be very successful. So much of medicine is trial and error, and how do you know if it is incurable if you don't try?
I would assume you are alluding to serious, old age/end of life scenarios where people spend millions of dollars trying to prolong life six months because of some devastating form of cancer. But still, those scenarios are typically used where they are trying to use an relatively untested treatment to prolong that life.
Ultimately, I think looking at some sort of ROI shrinks humans down to some sort of numbers game which you can't ever accurately measure. What if you denied treatment to someone whose offspring could have found the cure for the very disease you wouldn't treat?
Well, a guild and a union aren't exactly the same thing, but they certainly share certain traits. I would probably argue that All unions are guilds but not all guilds are unions. Take doctors for instance. They often have that "guild" type structure of learning, but don't really have unions.
On the other hand, DRM treats your paying customers like would-be criminals.
Completely agree. This reminds me of an old observation that was made with banks and their pens. Why is it that banks tie down their pens with chains to the desk? It makes the customer feel like a would-be criminal. The solution that some were making to this was just put out real pens with the company logo on them. That way if they take 'em, they have the advertising on them.
Never made nor purchased anything from the site nor am I affiliated with them in anyway, but shapeways can print in metal. http://www.shapeways.com/materials
Certainly can't disagree with you entire on this one. I know in my neck of the woods, a new teacher can actually get bumped up the "seniority" ladder if they don't have the required experience. For example, some teachers who are just starting out don't get the first year teacher pay, but rather get a year 2 or 3 pay (especially if they are teaching in the sciences field). There was a fascinating documentary on some of these subjects call American Teacher. It did touch base on some of the issues discussed here. One of the more interesting parts has to do with teacher pay. It is said over and over is that the quality teachers have the most in-class impact on a child's learning than any other in-class factor.
Additionally, they talked about how the profession demographics have changed over the years. Basically, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's with discrimination against women, teaching was often one of the few professional ways women could work. What this meant was that we had teachers who could have very well become doctors, lawyers, etc, who weren't able to go into those fields. These women were considered high quality teachers. With the advent of more equality in the workforce, women simply have more options.
I do tend to think that wages make a difference. I also think one problem lies in keeping them in the profession as opposed to going into a more lucrative field. I haven't seen much data to back that up though.
In America, the basic ecology of the passenger pigeon was known. I am sure there were nuances that we could have discovered about their role in the environment, but in general, their niche has been taken up by the mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). If we were to magically have breeding populations of passenger pigeons around, I suspect that we would see mourning dove populations decline and move back toward their more "natural" niche from pre-19th century.
I second this. Convict Conditioning has helped my joints become stronger as well. I am going very slow through the process, but it has been very beneficial for me. "Coach" stresses progressing slowly, which I have done, but that can be trying to one's patience as you might not "see" results quickly in the beginning.
Yeah, I probably wasn't clear on that one. I did see that FAQ. What I was getting at is that exact thing. Anyone can do some of the markets, but only academics can do all the markets. It's still a great idea though.
Agreed. Not that it is bad per se....but right now I don't know what questions he is actually answering. So I have somehow go back and figure it out which questions he is answering...which, honestly, I am not going to do.
I live in Cincinnati and Elmwood Place is a neighborhood that is geographically encompassed by Cincinnati. It is a relatively old "neighborhood" that operates its own police and fire services and has not been annexed by the city. The two biggest gripes by those caught are on the speed trap is 1) The owner of the car is getting issued a fine and points on their license when they weren't the ones driving the car, i.e. a family member (even friend) was driving the car. 2) Not adequate enough notice and time was given to let drivers know that speed cameras were going up in the first place 3) The cameras are catching people going less than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, and in some cases only 1 mile over (essentially there is not enough leeway).
What isn't helping this case that I think reporters are failing to mention is something that happened in another nearby town called Arlington Heights. This village has a small population and was a notorious speed trap on the interstate (I-75). At one point, a driver was killed as a result of a wreck that occurred while an officer was issuing a ticket. Furthermore, it has been discovered that the mayor and other officials of this village will pocketing money from the tickets issued. When the police chief said there was something fishy going on, he was given the run-around and eventually resigned his position. I think folks around here are concerned something similar might be happening.
“What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I’m a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.” – Julian Assange
I can't confirm if, where, and when he said this, but regardless the idea rings true for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Dissent is not the same as treason.
(In the best Ed McMahon voice I can muster) You are correct, Sir! Health care is not required for survival, although it could be required to maintain a healthy individual. I never said health care was required for survival.
The differentiation between wants and needs was what I used to determine how much/type of treatment was needed in order for a person maintain health. You gave a list of things someone might want to do in order to be healthy. I believe becoming a dolphin was one of them. I am simply saying that becoming a dolphin is not required for a human to be healthy. I might want a cannon on my arm, but it isn't going to make me healthy, and in actuality, it is probably going to be detrimental to my health.
Health care seems to be a interesting adaption for certain social animals. Communal wound licking by canids and primates come to mind. I would assume that it has something to do with the realization that if you aren't healthy, then you won't be able to get food, water, shelter, or air. Which of those, the first and second, might be shared by the group as a whole. (That's just me guessing).
The one I did find interesting (and more realistic) was the idea of someone wanting to become stronger. I immediately thought of gym memberships. Health insurance and care doesn't pay for gym memberships but it does impact health. I don't think that health insurance or care should require free gym memberships, but under your definition of "full medical care" it seems to just because "someone wants it". But the idea of becoming stronger is an interesting case because our current health care and insurance system does cover cases of physical therapy, which is generally used help some get back to a certain state of health. So in my definition of full medical care, I would include that as part of the definition.
Reading some of the responses to your post, I think people are missing your point. So. I am going to rephrase it so that they might understand. The summary compares apples to oranges. It compares the sentence which the rapists ACTUALLY received to the maximum sentence that the hacker MIGHT receive. The rapists MIGHT have received a much stiffer sentence than they did and it would be a travesty of justice if the hacker DID receive a sentence longer than that received by the rapists.
It simply means it encompasses the current level of standards.
Which in turn is an obfuscation for "we'll have a bureaucracy decide what you want or need". Having everyone pay for their own healthcare is just as much a "current level of standards" as that.
Actually, I was thinking more of doctor's determining the level of care per their protocols. Maybe in a stretch, the legal definition of "standard of care" would work. If that falls under your definition of bureaucracy, then yes, bureaucracy would decide it. If, however, by bereaucracy, you government, that was not my intention. But your senses are right in that government does, unfortunately, get involved in such matters. No, I don't think of a need as a strongly desired want. A need is something that is required for survival (food, water, shelter, air). If you subscribe to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, he mentions psychological needs (which I would assume dolphin would fall under in this case). (Wikipedia's Need page is an interesting perspective on the subject, though I don't necessarily agree with it).
Obviously, we could imagine someone having that need, but given our current reality, I can only think that if someone told me they had a need to be a dolphin, I would assume they suffering from some sort of neurosis or delusions . Obviously, this could change. Perhaps if we lived in a Waterworld type scenario, I would think otherwise.
And no matter how much of a softspot the movie Waterworld has in my heart, I can't help that this debate has digressed when I start coming up with Waterworld references. You certainly bring up good points with economics and the ACA. I wish you a good day!
Or if we were able to reach that rather huge goal, it wouldn't be the end. A large portion would want to look prettier, be stronger, smarter, etc than the next person. That's an arms race without limits. Others might have extreme health care goals, such as becoming a dolphin or being able to live in hard vacuum.
Sounds like your are confusing wants and needs. I agree that we have unlimited health care wants, but we don't have unlimited health care needs. In our current world, there is no need to becoming a dolphin. Actually, if you were to undertake that transformation, it would probably undermine your health as opposed to improve it. I guess we could get really philosophical about what "full" actually means, but we have to interpret what the AC was saying when he stated full medical care. You seem to be arguing that full medical care involves anything you could possibly want when it comes to medical care. Current medical care doesn't pay for gym memberships, which would, in theory, make someone stronger. It sounds like under your definition of full medical care, we could possibly cover tattoos (because someone might want to look prettier). I fail to see how this would have to do with medical care.
I guess you could ask him/her what exactly was meant by full medical care, but I think it is disingenuous to state that the poster mean full medical care to include any kind of care and augmentation to the heart's desire.
Most of the time in debates, you give the individual the benefit of the doubt as to the meaning of their argument until proven otherwise. With your logic, it is like going into a job interview after seeing a posting that mentions "full benefits". It seems to me you would expect the employer to other every benefit that you could possibly dream of. I realize that you may want catered lunches, babysitting services, health insurance, paid vacations, a pet monkey at your desk, a personal slave, and who knows what else. However, that is not what "full benefits" typically means. It simply means you get the total benefits of what is offered by the company. This works out the same for full medical care. lt means you get the full amount of standardized care.
This seems to be incongruous with the way "full" is typically used. In this case, full doesn't mean whatever your imagination can think of. It simply means it encompasses the current level of standards. When you work a full-time job, it doesn't mean you work 24-hours a day. It means you work the complete standardized allotment of hours.
Compared to what? You need to play that "numbers game", what we traditionally call "economics", because you have limited resources and unlimited needs. No one can have "full medical care" because that is impossible to support.
I think you are being overly, how should I say generous, by interpreting "full medical care" to mean "we will do anything and everything we can to cure someone of any disease that they have at any time". I don't interpret full medical care to be quite that extreme of a claim. I think doctors often have to make that call where it gets to the point that there is no more that can be done to cure the person of their disease, so they have to let nature take its course or what have you. You could argue that this is an economic decision, where they are making a call to not treat the individual because it will cost too much money for not enough return in quality of life. But it isn't a purely monetary decision. It doesn't revolve around money, but rather return on quality of life. But it seems as if you are claiming that we have unlimited needs for medical care and thus requires unlimited funds. I don't think this is the case. I disagree that we have unlimited needs. Ultimately, the biggest constraint is time. There are only so many health care professionals and only so much time that is available to treat and be treated. I could spend all my time going to doctors to get treated for whatever ailment-of-the-day I come up with it, but it comes at an opportunity cost of me working, sleeping, recreating, etc.
So why should we spend so much money on a service that is guaranteed to fail? I might be interested in limited medical care, but there, I'd limit it to things that have a substantial return on investment like vaccinations or treatments for curable medical conditions in young people.
I feel like you have a flaw in the logic there. Just because we eventually die, doesn't mean it is guaranteed to fail. We, as in our bodies, are guaranteed to fail, but that doesn't mean the treatment fails. The treatment can be very successful. So much of medicine is trial and error, and how do you know if it is incurable if you don't try? I would assume you are alluding to serious, old age/end of life scenarios where people spend millions of dollars trying to prolong life six months because of some devastating form of cancer. But still, those scenarios are typically used where they are trying to use an relatively untested treatment to prolong that life. Ultimately, I think looking at some sort of ROI shrinks humans down to some sort of numbers game which you can't ever accurately measure. What if you denied treatment to someone whose offspring could have found the cure for the very disease you wouldn't treat?
Well, a guild and a union aren't exactly the same thing, but they certainly share certain traits. I would probably argue that All unions are guilds but not all guilds are unions. Take doctors for instance. They often have that "guild" type structure of learning, but don't really have unions.
So if you get the red ring of death, does that mean it is ONE ring to rule them all?
While this might be pervasive at Microsoft, this problem does occur at other companies as well.
On the other hand, DRM treats your paying customers like would-be criminals.
Completely agree. This reminds me of an old observation that was made with banks and their pens. Why is it that banks tie down their pens with chains to the desk? It makes the customer feel like a would-be criminal. The solution that some were making to this was just put out real pens with the company logo on them. That way if they take 'em, they have the advertising on them.
Never made nor purchased anything from the site nor am I affiliated with them in anyway, but shapeways can print in metal. http://www.shapeways.com/materials
Perhaps want has nothing to do with it. Maybe they would need to come here.
Certainly possible. Although, when he was found he was carrying fruit with him.
Certainly can't disagree with you entire on this one. I know in my neck of the woods, a new teacher can actually get bumped up the "seniority" ladder if they don't have the required experience. For example, some teachers who are just starting out don't get the first year teacher pay, but rather get a year 2 or 3 pay (especially if they are teaching in the sciences field). There was a fascinating documentary on some of these subjects call American Teacher. It did touch base on some of the issues discussed here. One of the more interesting parts has to do with teacher pay. It is said over and over is that the quality teachers have the most in-class impact on a child's learning than any other in-class factor.
Additionally, they talked about how the profession demographics have changed over the years. Basically, in the 50's, 60's, and 70's with discrimination against women, teaching was often one of the few professional ways women could work. What this meant was that we had teachers who could have very well become doctors, lawyers, etc, who weren't able to go into those fields. These women were considered high quality teachers. With the advent of more equality in the workforce, women simply have more options.
They've been operating on a shoestring budget since as long as I can remember.
This appears to not be the case: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html
Shit wages make for shit teachers.
I do tend to think that wages make a difference. I also think one problem lies in keeping them in the profession as opposed to going into a more lucrative field. I haven't seen much data to back that up though.
In America, the basic ecology of the passenger pigeon was known. I am sure there were nuances that we could have discovered about their role in the environment, but in general, their niche has been taken up by the mourning doves (Zenaida macroura). If we were to magically have breeding populations of passenger pigeons around, I suspect that we would see mourning dove populations decline and move back toward their more "natural" niche from pre-19th century.
I second this. Convict Conditioning has helped my joints become stronger as well. I am going very slow through the process, but it has been very beneficial for me. "Coach" stresses progressing slowly, which I have done, but that can be trying to one's patience as you might not "see" results quickly in the beginning.
Yeah, I probably wasn't clear on that one. I did see that FAQ. What I was getting at is that exact thing. Anyone can do some of the markets, but only academics can do all the markets. It's still a great idea though.
There and back again...a nerd's tale!
Nice info. It seemed to me though that intrade had more markets and didn't limit market availability to academics.
Agreed. Not that it is bad per se....but right now I don't know what questions he is actually answering. So I have somehow go back and figure it out which questions he is answering...which, honestly, I am not going to do.
I live in Cincinnati and Elmwood Place is a neighborhood that is geographically encompassed by Cincinnati. It is a relatively old "neighborhood" that operates its own police and fire services and has not been annexed by the city. The two biggest gripes by those caught are on the speed trap is 1) The owner of the car is getting issued a fine and points on their license when they weren't the ones driving the car, i.e. a family member (even friend) was driving the car. 2) Not adequate enough notice and time was given to let drivers know that speed cameras were going up in the first place 3) The cameras are catching people going less than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, and in some cases only 1 mile over (essentially there is not enough leeway). What isn't helping this case that I think reporters are failing to mention is something that happened in another nearby town called Arlington Heights. This village has a small population and was a notorious speed trap on the interstate (I-75). At one point, a driver was killed as a result of a wreck that occurred while an officer was issuing a ticket. Furthermore, it has been discovered that the mayor and other officials of this village will pocketing money from the tickets issued. When the police chief said there was something fishy going on, he was given the run-around and eventually resigned his position. I think folks around here are concerned something similar might be happening.
“What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I’m a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.” – Julian Assange I can't confirm if, where, and when he said this, but regardless the idea rings true for me.
Wish I had mod points for this. Well said.