There is an excellent book on this very topic. It goes into the history of American crankery, and explains how important it was, but that the situation is different now. Read it. It's funny, and sometimes rather disturbing.
Dear AC, people really believe things. Really. They have values.
The holistic "healers" really believe that they have science on their side, or that they are being scientific. It is just like Ken Ham, and Lord Monckton.
That is what makes the situation sad. Not everything is about money.
Oh creationists just say that god was the origin. At some level, it is the same as saying that intelligence/consciousness is the fundamental quality of the universe... except that creationists go one better and posit an entity outside of our universe. It's all beyond conception, which is why you don't have to ask too many questions -- being limited human beings and all.
Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.
The George Marshall Institute, (an anti-environmentalists, pro-tobacco think-tank), threatened networks and newspapers with legal action over the fairness doctrine, the spirit of which is that public media is a public resource, and that both sides of debates should always be present.
This was back in the commie-Reagan era. There were real communist threats back then. Reagan wanted to build the absurdly expensive and naive strategic defense initiative, aka "Star Wars", and pretty much every scientist in America said it was a stupid waste of money and could never work. And even if it did, then the Soviets would be forced to respond with some other ridiculously expensive piece of technology. (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)
So... how to do silence a consensus of scientists? Well, the tobacco industry had been doing just that for 30 years by then. Get a few true ideological believers: (e.g., Frederick Seitz) and make a whole lot of noise, and if the newspapers/tv don't play along: sue them with deep corporate pockets.
This worked. Mass media started to give false balance to an industry funded effort to rape the tax payer of trillions of dollars on a stupid missile defense system that had no chance of working.
Then Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine (giving birth to right-wing radio), the Soviet empire collapsed, and the ideological believers moved on to other targets. Specifically: fighting regulations on passive smoking, acid rain, and the ozone whole... and of course climate change. In all cases the tactic was exactly the same, and this very small coterie was/is massively funded in spreading "doubt". You can read a ridiculous amount of grizzly details in Merchants of Doubt.
The point is that we create society however we want, and the load whining of creationists is just part of the game.
I suggest, instead, that the primary problem with our government, and our economy, is the Federal Reserve.
Ah, I see we're dealing with a crank. Well no-one expects a true believer to give due diligence to counter-arguments, but for those reading... both provided links are pithy, and highlight just how screwed up our situation really is.
Yeah, that's where the government taxes the rich and provides healthcare to everyone, including the rich. Works great in most countries in the world, esp. when there is a semi-private system, and public institutions must compete with (subsidized) private hospitals.
The ACA is an insurance mandate, which is far more complex, because the insurance companies take the place of government bureaucracies.
I'm yet to meet someone who exists in the echo chamber who has a wonkish understanding of even these basic issues. But hey, I lived in three countries, and don't have a partisan stake in the shit-show that is politics in this country. So that puts me at odds with basically everything that happens in the echo chamber, even though I'm a conservative.
No more. Cheap, high deductible policies are no longer allowed. And if you forgo coverage, the gov't will take it out of you in the form of a penalty.
Said young person will be on their parents plan until 26 years old. Then, if they are at or about the poverty level, they will be covered by Medicade in those states that choose to expand it.
The reason why some red states are obstinately refusing to reform medicade is that they want the ACA to fail. But it will only cause a crunch in their states -- forcing many hospitals to close, and placing a huge burden on those who can afford it the least. Of course, you could raise the minimum wage, but that's a non-starter amoungst the faithful as well.
We have already seen GOP moonbats blame the ACA for the very problems they are causing.
There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.
When the private sector took over the electricity infrastructure in New Zealand, they stopped doing maintenance. The plan was that they would sell the majority share of the company to foreign investors before things started to break, and calculated a 10 year window. And then Auckland had record blackouts that cost the economy huge amounts of money, and the government had to step in and do something about it.
Everything "works" fine so long as you can throw money at it.
That's not true.
The problem is, and as you've seen over the last several years, you eventually run out of other people's money.
If a government solution delivers more for less than a private solution, then why would a society subsidize a few monied interests? Of course you think the private solution will always be cheaper and better... but that is a rather extreme ideological position based on an abstract mathematical model of the economy which has been shown to be flawed empirically. Of course, right-wing economists are the first to say that they don't need to test their models with data.
Then the "invisible cost" suddenly becomes very real.
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and it isn't that great. I know from personal experience, that Canada and Australia has better healthcare for a working professional. Government is a *big* part of the problem in US healthcare... and there needs to be a gradual rollback of institutional rules and subsidies. But it is a mistake to think that the situation would automagically be better without regulatory interference. There are real healthcare markets in the world which already operate like that (such as Russia), and they are *terrible*.
Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare?
Every other developed country can do it.
Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA?
The VA has systemic issues that are out of control. But the echo-chamber engages in a lot of motivated reasoning in an attempt to portray medicare and medicade as somehow less efficient the private insurance. Well... if that's what you want to believe, then you'll always be able to cobble together *some* argument. But the vast majority of people who study the issue accept that medicare has lower administrative costs (much lower), and is able to use is single-buyer muscle to extract much better deals from the healthcare industry. Arguments to the contrary tend to focus on abstract economic ideas, such as this is more expensive in totality, because it distorts "natural" economic activity, which is, ipso facto, more efficient. This abstract idea has never actually been tested (because such markets are mathematical abstractions), and the vast majority of economists point out fundamental problems with this idealized notion. But if you restrict you economics advice to those who already ideologically agree with you... then you'll find a small cadre of "chicago economists" who are actually against empirical tests of their hypotheses!
prices "on the wall" for all procedures so the consumer can make open choices
I agree with that. The USA is really struggling because of the complex institutional nature of Healthcare subsidies and rules. There is nothing in the ACA that would preclude "prices on the wall" for all procedures. Remember the law is about getting people to buy reasonable quality insurance. It is not dictating the price of anything, but it is giving the individual consumer with more bargaining power, and more information, so that they can make choices that suit them. The insurance companies and hospitals will do anything to hide the real costs to patients, because they will make more money that way. So there will need to be some law that mandates that customers should now the costs up front. Expect the health industry to whine though.
The feds will undoubtedly try to impose price controls
You've spent too much time reading partisan news that is betting on ACA failure, and all the associated wishful thinking. In the "reality based community", the chances of this happening currently very small. I hope you're not too disappointed, but eventually it will sink in.
freedom to shop around worldwide for better drug prices
That would be *hugely* beneficial. Keep in mind that shopping around the world will only have marginal utility unless there is reasonable patent reform. But these guys should get a kick in the pants. The drug companies don't even pay for their R&D any more. They are massively wasteful parasites.
freedom of entry to the field for technical specialists (nurse/practitioners, midwives, et. al.)
So long as they are actually qualified. Problem is that quacks always think they are qualified, and we have the entire morass of the pseudo-health industry. It works because people have ideological blinders. (Think of all the liberal gaia-hypothesis-spiritual-health-quacks.) I believe the government has a role in promoting real science -- which has to be the kind that pursues the truth, and not partisan agendas.
If the GOP has plans to fix problems in the ACA, then they should produce a bill. But alas, we get obstruct-obstruct-obstruct. Fiddling with portions of the law is just a practical consideration because congress cannot do its job. But I'm sure you know best, even though you have no constructive contribution to the problem with probability 1.0, almost surely.
The ACA was the conservative alternative to Bill Clintons attempt at health reform in the early 90s. It was supported by key conservatives up until.... the election of Obama.
Oh, just regulations in general. Ya know? teh bad guv'ment.
On a serious note, businesses do need to hire consultants who know the rules and regulations, so that they can assess if they are compliant. It would be a good thing in general if the regulations make sense -- but that seems to be a bit of a hit and miss affair. Better than nothing though.
The defenders of this law are guilty of more spin than the Iraqi Information Minister some years back.
I would be a card carry conservative if the party wasn't ruled by anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-democratic tendencies. Projection is the net result of this. At least the Democrats have the good sense to be ashamed of the liberal moonbat fringe. I'm yet to meet a conservative who actually knows something about the ACA that they didn't learn in the echo-chamber. But of course, it's the other guy pushing propaganda. And that is the madness that stops us from actually solving our problems.
Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make. (It doesn't.)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together. The reason for this is that there is some theory we'd have to agree to first..
You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.
One thing at a time. Got to stop *your* gish galloping. If you did this, then in theory we could cover everything.
If, and only if, you reply in a mature fashion, we can continue this discussion.
Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating:)
Are you aware of the difference between declaring there are a lot of aguments, and dumping a lot of arguments all at once?
This is really simple stuff... and that you'd fight about it... just highlights how little self-awareness you have.
And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for:)
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
HS, with the gish gallop, arguments are dropped all at once, without giving a person a chance to respond in a reasonable manner. Read it again.
You are very good an incorporating the *words* people use against you into your arguments. But that is really the horizon of your talents. Your argument strategy is basically to gish gallop loudly and rather crazily until other person walks away shaking their head. And then you think of yourself as intellectually superior, and "logical" -- without any trace of irony.
HS, about the only thing I managed to teach you was the difference between naive falsification, and finding the "best" theory, and also that Popper was talking about finding good tests, and not iron-clad logical expressions.
It is my belief that you will just incorporate this true knowledge into your delusions. Of that I am certain.
If you are interested in actually learning something about AGW then you can have my time. Otherwise, this has been a great reminder for me about the florid manifestations of the mechanisms of denial.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an excellent book on this very topic. It goes into the history of American crankery, and explains how important it was, but that the situation is different now. Read it. It's funny, and sometimes rather disturbing.
Well... and anecdote isn't statistical evidence... it's anecdotal which implies infinite variance in interpretation.
Alternative medicines and Diets debates is about justifying to yourself the extra money you are paying.
Mixing cause and effect.
And make you feel special because it seems like you hold some special knowledge that the rest of the mindless masses doesn't.
Now that hits the nail on the head.
Not all alternative medicine is proven not to work. Plenty is, but not all.
Dear AC, people really believe things. Really. They have values.
The holistic "healers" really believe that they have science on their side, or that they are being scientific. It is just like Ken Ham, and Lord Monckton.
That is what makes the situation sad. Not everything is about money.
I don't know any actual christians who think God has spoken to them directly.
I do. The so called "word from God".
Oh creationists just say that god was the origin. At some level, it is the same as saying that intelligence/consciousness is the fundamental quality of the universe... except that creationists go one better and posit an entity outside of our universe. It's all beyond conception, which is why you don't have to ask too many questions -- being limited human beings and all.
Yes, i do realize the FCC says you have to give SOME time away to public interest to get a broadcast license, but not equal time.
The George Marshall Institute, (an anti-environmentalists, pro-tobacco think-tank), threatened networks and newspapers with legal action over the fairness doctrine, the spirit of which is that public media is a public resource, and that both sides of debates should always be present.
This was back in the commie-Reagan era. There were real communist threats back then. Reagan wanted to build the absurdly expensive and naive strategic defense initiative, aka "Star Wars", and pretty much every scientist in America said it was a stupid waste of money and could never work. And even if it did, then the Soviets would be forced to respond with some other ridiculously expensive piece of technology. (The Soviets saw Star Wars as a complete joke.)
So... how to do silence a consensus of scientists? Well, the tobacco industry had been doing just that for 30 years by then. Get a few true ideological believers: (e.g., Frederick Seitz) and make a whole lot of noise, and if the newspapers/tv don't play along: sue them with deep corporate pockets.
This worked. Mass media started to give false balance to an industry funded effort to rape the tax payer of trillions of dollars on a stupid missile defense system that had no chance of working.
Then Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine (giving birth to right-wing radio), the Soviet empire collapsed, and the ideological believers moved on to other targets. Specifically: fighting regulations on passive smoking, acid rain, and the ozone whole... and of course climate change. In all cases the tactic was exactly the same, and this very small coterie was/is massively funded in spreading "doubt". You can read a ridiculous amount of grizzly details in Merchants of Doubt.
The point is that we create society however we want, and the load whining of creationists is just part of the game.
Interesting attempt to paint the "rightmost elements" of government as being responsible for our dysfunctional government.
A 30-year senior GOP insider said explicitly that the agreed strategy to destroy government, and then blame the other guy.
I suggest, instead, that the primary problem with our government, and our economy, is the Federal Reserve.
Ah, I see we're dealing with a crank. Well no-one expects a true believer to give due diligence to counter-arguments, but for those reading... both provided links are pithy, and highlight just how screwed up our situation really is.
You know how socialized medicine works, right?
Yeah, that's where the government taxes the rich and provides healthcare to everyone, including the rich. Works great in most countries in the world, esp. when there is a semi-private system, and public institutions must compete with (subsidized) private hospitals.
The ACA is an insurance mandate, which is far more complex, because the insurance companies take the place of government bureaucracies.
I'm yet to meet someone who exists in the echo chamber who has a wonkish understanding of even these basic issues. But hey, I lived in three countries, and don't have a partisan stake in the shit-show that is politics in this country. So that puts me at odds with basically everything that happens in the echo chamber, even though I'm a conservative.
Sure, have the "freedom" to start your own (possibly unprofitable) business by not having to worry about pesky bills and responsibilities.
The point of mandating people to buy insurance is that they *do* take responsibility for pesky bills.
No more. Cheap, high deductible policies are no longer allowed. And if you forgo coverage, the gov't will take it out of you in the form of a penalty.
Said young person will be on their parents plan until 26 years old. Then, if they are at or about the poverty level, they will be covered by Medicade in those states that choose to expand it.
The reason why some red states are obstinately refusing to reform medicade is that they want the ACA to fail. But it will only cause a crunch in their states -- forcing many hospitals to close, and placing a huge burden on those who can afford it the least. Of course, you could raise the minimum wage, but that's a non-starter amoungst the faithful as well.
We have already seen GOP moonbats blame the ACA for the very problems they are causing.
There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.
When the private sector took over the electricity infrastructure in New Zealand, they stopped doing maintenance. The plan was that they would sell the majority share of the company to foreign investors before things started to break, and calculated a 10 year window. And then Auckland had record blackouts that cost the economy huge amounts of money, and the government had to step in and do something about it.
Some thing happened in Queensland, Australia.
Not so simple, is it.
Everything "works" fine so long as you can throw money at it.
That's not true.
The problem is, and as you've seen over the last several years, you eventually run out of other people's money.
If a government solution delivers more for less than a private solution, then why would a society subsidize a few monied interests? Of course you think the private solution will always be cheaper and better... but that is a rather extreme ideological position based on an abstract mathematical model of the economy which has been shown to be flawed empirically. Of course, right-wing economists are the first to say that they don't need to test their models with data.
Then the "invisible cost" suddenly becomes very real.
The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, and it isn't that great. I know from personal experience, that Canada and Australia has better healthcare for a working professional. Government is a *big* part of the problem in US healthcare... and there needs to be a gradual rollback of institutional rules and subsidies. But it is a mistake to think that the situation would automagically be better without regulatory interference. There are real healthcare markets in the world which already operate like that (such as Russia), and they are *terrible*.
Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare?
Every other developed country can do it.
Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA?
The VA has systemic issues that are out of control. But the echo-chamber engages in a lot of motivated reasoning in an attempt to portray medicare and medicade as somehow less efficient the private insurance. Well... if that's what you want to believe, then you'll always be able to cobble together *some* argument. But the vast majority of people who study the issue accept that medicare has lower administrative costs (much lower), and is able to use is single-buyer muscle to extract much better deals from the healthcare industry. Arguments to the contrary tend to focus on abstract economic ideas, such as this is more expensive in totality, because it distorts "natural" economic activity, which is, ipso facto, more efficient. This abstract idea has never actually been tested (because such markets are mathematical abstractions), and the vast majority of economists point out fundamental problems with this idealized notion. But if you restrict you economics advice to those who already ideologically agree with you... then you'll find a small cadre of "chicago economists" who are actually against empirical tests of their hypotheses!
prices "on the wall" for all procedures so the consumer can make open choices
I agree with that. The USA is really struggling because of the complex institutional nature of Healthcare subsidies and rules. There is nothing in the ACA that would preclude "prices on the wall" for all procedures. Remember the law is about getting people to buy reasonable quality insurance. It is not dictating the price of anything, but it is giving the individual consumer with more bargaining power, and more information, so that they can make choices that suit them. The insurance companies and hospitals will do anything to hide the real costs to patients, because they will make more money that way. So there will need to be some law that mandates that customers should now the costs up front. Expect the health industry to whine though.
The feds will undoubtedly try to impose price controls
You've spent too much time reading partisan news that is betting on ACA failure, and all the associated wishful thinking. In the "reality based community", the chances of this happening currently very small. I hope you're not too disappointed, but eventually it will sink in.
freedom to shop around worldwide for better drug prices
That would be *hugely* beneficial. Keep in mind that shopping around the world will only have marginal utility unless there is reasonable patent reform. But these guys should get a kick in the pants. The drug companies don't even pay for their R&D any more. They are massively wasteful parasites.
freedom of entry to the field for technical specialists (nurse/practitioners, midwives, et. al.)
So long as they are actually qualified. Problem is that quacks always think they are qualified, and we have the entire morass of the pseudo-health industry. It works because people have ideological blinders. (Think of all the liberal gaia-hypothesis-spiritual-health-quacks.) I believe the government has a role in promoting real science -- which has to be the kind that pursues the truth, and not partisan agendas.
If the GOP has plans to fix problems in the ACA, then they should produce a bill. But alas, we get obstruct-obstruct-obstruct. Fiddling with portions of the law is just a practical consideration because congress cannot do its job. But I'm sure you know best, even though you have no constructive contribution to the problem with probability 1.0, almost surely.
The ACA was the conservative alternative to Bill Clintons attempt at health reform in the early 90s. It was supported by key conservatives up until.... the election of Obama.
Oh, just regulations in general. Ya know? teh bad guv'ment.
On a serious note, businesses do need to hire consultants who know the rules and regulations, so that they can assess if they are compliant. It would be a good thing in general if the regulations make sense -- but that seems to be a bit of a hit and miss affair. Better than nothing though.
The defenders of this law are guilty of more spin than the Iraqi Information Minister some years back.
I would be a card carry conservative if the party wasn't ruled by anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-democratic tendencies. Projection is the net result of this. At least the Democrats have the good sense to be ashamed of the liberal moonbat fringe. I'm yet to meet a conservative who actually knows something about the ACA that they didn't learn in the echo-chamber. But of course, it's the other guy pushing propaganda. And that is the madness that stops us from actually solving our problems.
Your argument: the following is a "good test":
Actually, I said it was a test, but not a "good test". Go back and read it.
Also, I said 20 years does not a decadal trend make. (It doesn't.)
Also, I said we'd swing back to the last 20 years... and do the regression ourselves together. The reason for this is that there is some theory we'd have to agree to first..
You've made an argument. I made an objection. You've refused to answer.
One thing at a time. Got to stop *your* gish galloping. If you did this, then in theory we could cover everything.
If, and only if, you reply in a mature fashion, we can continue this discussion.
HS, getting you to agree to each argument one-by-one is the opposite of 'spewing forth torrents of errors"
Do you have any oblique awareness that you are batshit insane?
From rationalwiki:
The formal debating term for this is spreading. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible.
Enumerating the arguments one-by-one is the opposite of a gish-gallop.
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
What does that mean?
Do you not know what a decadal trend is?
Well, you went ahead and "proudly boast[ed] the number of reasons involved", instead of actually focusing on the fact that your first reason was self defeating :)
Are you aware of the difference between declaring there are a lot of aguments, and dumping a lot of arguments all at once?
This is really simple stuff... and that you'd fight about it... just highlights how little self-awareness you have.
And your very first one you cited falsified AGW, a marvelous achievement I wish I could take credit for :)
Not in the slightest... because 1.7 data points doesn't make a trend.
Again this is really simple stuff.
How old are you?
HS, with the gish gallop, arguments are dropped all at once, without giving a person a chance to respond in a reasonable manner. Read it again.
You are very good an incorporating the *words* people use against you into your arguments. But that is really the horizon of your talents. Your argument strategy is basically to gish gallop loudly and rather crazily until other person walks away shaking their head. And then you think of yourself as intellectually superior, and "logical" -- without any trace of irony.
HS, about the only thing I managed to teach you was the difference between naive falsification, and finding the "best" theory, and also that Popper was talking about finding good tests, and not iron-clad logical expressions.
It is my belief that you will just incorporate this true knowledge into your delusions. Of that I am certain.
If you are interested in actually learning something about AGW then you can have my time. Otherwise, this has been a great reminder for me about the florid manifestations of the mechanisms of denial.