The Tyranny of Medical Bills in America

[RSL]

It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.

[Isaac]

This isn't about science -- it's about economics and politics.

[RSL]

You need to explain that to Jeremy.

[jeremyrh]

It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.

[amolitor]

When someone starts citing papers or talking about the science itself, you know you're dealing with a partisan, interestingly.

The science is too complex and subtle for lay people. What lay people can and should judge is not the science but the men.

[jeremyrh]

When someone starts citing papers or talking about the science itself, you know you're dealing with a partisan, interestingly.

The science is too complex and subtle for lay people. What lay people can and should judge is not the science but the men.

I think even a non-lay person, for whom the science is not too difficult, is faced with the problem that there's so f***in' MUCH of it!

[amolitor]

Yep. The experts are also stuck judging men, much of the time, in modern science. Across all disciplines.

[RSL]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.

As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."

[jjj]

It's no use, Isaac. You can't argue with Jeremy. He believes there's such a thing as "settled science." When I was at University of Michigan "settled science" said we were at the beginning of a new ice age. Like climate, "settled science" is constantly changing.

Why let facts get in the way of your opinions Russ?
I most certainly do not  believe in 'settled science', anything but.

You need to explain that to Jeremy.

More ignorant, inaccurate and patronising nonsense.
Why not argue points cogently rather than being an insulting troll?

As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."

Oh wait, more petty and still inaccurate insults.
You need to grow up and stop behaving like the child you were an ever increasingly long time ago.

[jjj]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he believes you should act according to the best available knowledge and understanding you have at the time. Right now that understanding, based on a huge amount of data and analysis, is that humans are changing the climate and that a tipping point may soon be reached past which it is too late to mitigate the effects without major disruption. Pretending that that is not the case is not a matter of being a wise old head, or an educated sceptic; it's just stupidity.

Absolutely spot on.
Saved me having to say the same thing.

[hjulenissen]

As I said in an earlier post, it is a question of what is working? In Australia you don't have to worry about going broke paying for your medical bills, there is no need for food banks. Yes, there are dysfunctional families that need support, but that is another question.

Why can't Americans see that their system is broken? Has ideology taken over!

I do think that there are probably several decent ways to organize a system, and I don't think that the US system is all broken.

I do think that _some_ Americans tends to be very proud of their system (or their favoured part of it), to the point of any discussion about relative merits inevitably turns into a polarized mess. I tried to offer cricism of the system that I happen to be born into (of which there are many things to critizise) and of my own personal political views (of which there are somewhat less things to critizise...) in the hope that this would foster more open debate. It did not seem to work out.

I just heard that our labour party in one particular local county had such an overwhelming majority that they chose to cede some seats to competing parties (maintaining majority) in order to get some diversification of opinion.

In more local news, we just got a new party "the green party" rising up from nowhere in the 2015 local elections. Their program seems to be "environment, at any cost". They will apparently "sell" their votes left and right in other issues as long as they get to dictate a green policy. The fun part is that they (often) are at a power position where their measly 4.2% will really matter. While I find climate matters "hard", I have a hard time figuring out why 4.2% of my people (apparently) thinks that (more) environment(al friedlyness) trumps _everything else_.

I am fortunate to be in a position where I could (I assume) pay my medical bills. I am reasonably young and healthy and I have a decent job. I believe that I could have moved to a more liberalistic country in order to have a higher pay, less taxes and profit from under-paid service workers in order to get more Happy meals/beer/<insert pleasure here> for every hour spent at work. Question is, why don't I move, and why do I accept a system that "holds me back" in an Ayn Rand-esque way? When I am voting in _our_ political right (that would probably be equivalent to "democrat" for our US friends), it is not primarily because I want less taxes but (more so) because I want less government spying on citizens. I am not scared by a wealthy state, nor by a state with many employees, but I am scared by a state that knows everything about its citizens (in the name of "anti terror", "anti immoral" or whatever nastyness one can invoke to stop people from applying common sense).

-h