This isn’t the interesting question to me, however. What I’d like to know is how much more innovation there might be, how much more competition on price, and how much more access to treatment there might be with a greater role for consumers to choose health plans based on these factors.
From whence comes this over-arching reliance on consumers' judgement? Does the company that sells the most cheeseburgers make the best cheeseburgers? (Substitute "cars" or "novels" or whatever in that question.)
Given our (the consumers') evident susceptibility for 30-second ads that successfully sell us everything from crappy sandwiches to crappy politicians, what makes you think that our choices, en masse, for something as complicated and esoteric as health plans will work out well?
(Best cheeseburger I ever had: Nick's - a little diner that used to be in the shadow of the Capitol Records tower in Hollywood.)
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
"…but then you proceed to explain how the supernatural cannot be explained by science. It seems like you are sort of proving my point."
Well, if your point is that the supernatural can't be quantized, recorded, duplicated, repeated, counted on, or basically even happen, then I am indeed proving your point.
Perhaps any decision reached honestly and with careful thought (or faith) that has room for respectful disagreement should not be referred to as "arrogant."
"What I am suggesting is that if you are relying on emperical data or the scientific method to ascertain the existence of the supernatural – you are not using science correctly." -- Mike
Actually, if you use anything but empirical data or the scientific method you are not using science correctly. The "supernatural" is termed such because it cannot stand up to the rigors of proof. (If it could, we wouldn't use the "super," it would just be "natural.") I certainly understand that most of the human beings who ever lived believe strongly in the supernatural. For whatever reason, I'm not one of them. But "science" does not function at all well without the rigors of experiment and proof.
Mike -- o.k., I'm seeing where we part company on the matter of choice. Let me go back to another thing that you brought up:
Do you think that, by denying the other gods mentioned, you are arrogant? (I understand that you don't think that your god is superior -- but you did choose it over all the others.)
Odin. Ra. Thor. Ganesh. Zeus. Ra. Isis. Did you actually choose not to believe in them and all the other deities that you may have come across in your readings and travels? And, since I am completely convinced that there is no Odin in Asgard or Zeus on Olympus, I am arrogant? And what makes your god special or different?
I'm sorry...I don't really understand. My lack of belief in dragons and hobbits is arrogance? I'm stating that my reasoning is "flawless" if I don't believe in dragons and hobbits? You do not have a lack of belief in dragons and hobbits? Somehow I have a choice whether or not to believe in dragons and hobbits? Not believing in dragons and hobbits means I think I have the "entire universe figured out"? (Please feel free to replace the nouns "dragons" and "hobbits" with any other mythological entities about which we have absolutely no evidence of existence.)
Mike -- you may well be right about some being offended. Personally, I would prefer the word "saddened." And I do think that it is a shame that people would revere a being that they believe is large enough to create the whole darn thing, and yet be small enough to torture people for lack of proper respect/belief.
Mike -- me again... or perhaps we atheists are saying: "I think that the Universe is a completely natural thing that, while certainly incompletely understood by us, doesn't contain anything at all 'supernatural.' And if there is some sort of god out there that created the entire thing, as vast as it is, that spectacular being can hardly be particularly concerned about whether or not I worship it in a particular way, or, indeed, at all."
Mike -- I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree about atheism being a choice. I'm sorry for the over-used examples, but I would vastly prefer to believe in the existence of dragons and hobbits and such things, but simply have no choice but to reject their reality, given the world I see around me. The exact same process happens in regards to any god that I have thus far heard of. It's not a choice I make -- I simply cannot reconcile that sort of belief/faith with anything that I see or have experienced.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Contraception is pretty damn important to a woman’s health”
This isn’t the interesting question to me, however. What I’d like to know is how much more innovation there might be, how much more competition on price, and how much more access to treatment there might be with a greater role for consumers to choose health plans based on these factors.
From whence comes this over-arching reliance on consumers' judgement? Does the company that sells the most cheeseburgers make the best cheeseburgers? (Substitute "cars" or "novels" or whatever in that question.)
Given our (the consumers') evident susceptibility for 30-second ads that successfully sell us everything from crappy sandwiches to crappy politicians, what makes you think that our choices, en masse, for something as complicated and esoteric as health plans will work out well?
(Best cheeseburger I ever had: Nick's - a little diner that used to be in the shadow of the Capitol Records tower in Hollywood.)
On “If I Were President”
pelvic-lithotomy
On “The Culture is Fine, Thanks”
Raiders, Chariots, Das Boot, Arthur, Absence of Malice, Body Heat, Gallipoli, Gregory's Girl, Mephisto, Reds, S.O.B., Thief...
Yeah, I'm just cherry-picking of off Wikipedia -- but isn't that kind of the point? Bet we could do just about the same thing for any year.
On “A Little Atheism for Y’all”
can't resist -- here's a take from Emo Phillips:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.
— Emo Philips, comedian
"
"…but then you proceed to explain how the supernatural cannot be explained by science. It seems like you are sort of proving my point."
Well, if your point is that the supernatural can't be quantized, recorded, duplicated, repeated, counted on, or basically even happen, then I am indeed proving your point.
"
Perhaps any decision reached honestly and with careful thought (or faith) that has room for respectful disagreement should not be referred to as "arrogant."
"
"What I am suggesting is that if you are relying on emperical data or the scientific method to ascertain the existence of the supernatural – you are not using science correctly." -- Mike
Actually, if you use anything but empirical data or the scientific method you are not using science correctly. The "supernatural" is termed such because it cannot stand up to the rigors of proof. (If it could, we wouldn't use the "super," it would just be "natural.") I certainly understand that most of the human beings who ever lived believe strongly in the supernatural. For whatever reason, I'm not one of them. But "science" does not function at all well without the rigors of experiment and proof.
"
Mike -- o.k., I'm seeing where we part company on the matter of choice. Let me go back to another thing that you brought up:
Do you think that, by denying the other gods mentioned, you are arrogant? (I understand that you don't think that your god is superior -- but you did choose it over all the others.)
"
Odin. Ra. Thor. Ganesh. Zeus. Ra. Isis. Did you actually choose not to believe in them and all the other deities that you may have come across in your readings and travels? And, since I am completely convinced that there is no Odin in Asgard or Zeus on Olympus, I am arrogant? And what makes your god special or different?
"
I'm sorry...I don't really understand. My lack of belief in dragons and hobbits is arrogance? I'm stating that my reasoning is "flawless" if I don't believe in dragons and hobbits? You do not have a lack of belief in dragons and hobbits? Somehow I have a choice whether or not to believe in dragons and hobbits? Not believing in dragons and hobbits means I think I have the "entire universe figured out"? (Please feel free to replace the nouns "dragons" and "hobbits" with any other mythological entities about which we have absolutely no evidence of existence.)
"
Mike -- you may well be right about some being offended. Personally, I would prefer the word "saddened." And I do think that it is a shame that people would revere a being that they believe is large enough to create the whole darn thing, and yet be small enough to torture people for lack of proper respect/belief.
"
Mike -- me again... or perhaps we atheists are saying: "I think that the Universe is a completely natural thing that, while certainly incompletely understood by us, doesn't contain anything at all 'supernatural.' And if there is some sort of god out there that created the entire thing, as vast as it is, that spectacular being can hardly be particularly concerned about whether or not I worship it in a particular way, or, indeed, at all."
"
Mike -- I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree about atheism being a choice. I'm sorry for the over-used examples, but I would vastly prefer to believe in the existence of dragons and hobbits and such things, but simply have no choice but to reject their reality, given the world I see around me. The exact same process happens in regards to any god that I have thus far heard of. It's not a choice I make -- I simply cannot reconcile that sort of belief/faith with anything that I see or have experienced.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.