About a cord.
A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""blayzer13""]how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood[/quote]
About a cord.
About a cord.
"Nature doesn't like Agra forts." - Sporting Lisbon
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""cleeduz""][quote=""blayzer13""]how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood[/quote]
About a cord.[/quote]
He would chuck, he would, as much as he could,
And chuck as much as a woodchuck would
If a woodchuck could chuck wood.
About a cord.
[/quote]He would chuck, he would, as much as he could,
And chuck as much as a woodchuck would
If a woodchuck could chuck wood.
From the OP maker of the OP Sigs, Cleeduz brings maybe some of his best work yet!
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
depends if by wood chuck you mean chuck norris therefore the amount is not describable in human numeracy only in single measurements of pwnage
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""IndyBrit""]A "defender of the American medicine" might say "of course it happens but the free market system still produces the greatest total good" (although said defender may also say that the "American system" is not really free market but is instead a broken government/private Frankensteinien monstrosity, and that even the evil "national health care" would probably be better than what we have now).
Said defender may also challenge a different kind of defender of a different health care system by asking, is it OK to:
a) tell someone they can have the treatment, but kill them by putting them on a waiting list so long that they die waiting for approved treatment, or
b) to reduce the total amount of treatment available to all by making the medical profession so thankless and under-paid that we end up with a reduced number of doctors, who are also unmotivated, thereby killing many but at least we can't specifically identify who the killed folks are.
You knew Kaiser and I would have to spoil another thread crossing foils. 8O
En garde!
[/quote]
Ha ha! I knew when I typed "defenders of American medicine" I would summon thee forth!
Your practical points are well taken about nationalizing health care. My objections are largely theoretical; my premise is that medicine is not your average commodity, and that it strikes me as cruel to apply ordinary business considerations to it. True, medicine functions every day as a business. It just gives me pause, because human suffering, illness and pain stand on a different footing than buying a house or car. It is one thing to deny credit to someone who wants to buy a plasma screen TV; it is another thing to deny medical coverage to a person for financial reasons.
Said defender may also challenge a different kind of defender of a different health care system by asking, is it OK to:
a) tell someone they can have the treatment, but kill them by putting them on a waiting list so long that they die waiting for approved treatment, or
b) to reduce the total amount of treatment available to all by making the medical profession so thankless and under-paid that we end up with a reduced number of doctors, who are also unmotivated, thereby killing many but at least we can't specifically identify who the killed folks are.
You knew Kaiser and I would have to spoil another thread crossing foils. 8O
En garde!
[/quote]Ha ha! I knew when I typed "defenders of American medicine" I would summon thee forth!
Your practical points are well taken about nationalizing health care. My objections are largely theoretical; my premise is that medicine is not your average commodity, and that it strikes me as cruel to apply ordinary business considerations to it. True, medicine functions every day as a business. It just gives me pause, because human suffering, illness and pain stand on a different footing than buying a house or car. It is one thing to deny credit to someone who wants to buy a plasma screen TV; it is another thing to deny medical coverage to a person for financial reasons.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Health care is one of our wonderful, big, hairy, intractable problems. Among the issues (no particular order):
1) Health care is a "necessity", but much of the consumption of health care resources is in fact "voluntary"; how do you control consumption under those circumstances?
2) Health care is a service performed by someone, not a product that can be dispensed like surplus cheese
3) Health care requires research for continuous improvement, and the research requires enormous capital expenditure with huge lead times
4) Intellectual property systems are ill-equipped for health care technologies, due to said lead times and expense (one example - it makes little economic sense to have two companies spend 10 years and $5 BB and have only one get a patent because they file a day earlier than their competitor)
5) Some people consume very few health care resources where others can have procedures that consume many lifetimes of income
6) Some aspects of a person's health are entirely externally driven (e.g. bad genes)
7) Some aspects of a person's health have a large voluntary component (e.g. smokers, obesity, etc.)
8 ) In the spectrum of health care, one system is generally expected to cover mundane expected daily expenses (e.g. standard medications, visits for the flu, vaccines), seemingly random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. a quadruple bypass or reattachment of a lost hand), and even seemingly expected fantastically huge expenses (e.g. having a child), plus seemingly expected yet random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. said child is a preemie requiring 3 weeks in ICU). No other system that comes to mind that is expected to deal with such diversity - for example your car insurance is not expected to pay for your oil changes or to fill up your gas tank, your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to repaint the baby's room, your life insurance doesn't pay for your insulin (although maybe it should...)
9) Health care costs are largely driven by one growing segment of society (the old) creating automatic tension with the rest
10) entry to the health care field has a multi-year lead time, so the response time to an increase in demand is delayed despite financial incentives
To me, this problem is far more difficult to deal with than energy or global warming. The internal conflicts in the above points (and others I can't think of right now) make it easy to attack any position set forth, if a guy enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate like I do.
1) Health care is a "necessity", but much of the consumption of health care resources is in fact "voluntary"; how do you control consumption under those circumstances?
2) Health care is a service performed by someone, not a product that can be dispensed like surplus cheese
3) Health care requires research for continuous improvement, and the research requires enormous capital expenditure with huge lead times
4) Intellectual property systems are ill-equipped for health care technologies, due to said lead times and expense (one example - it makes little economic sense to have two companies spend 10 years and $5 BB and have only one get a patent because they file a day earlier than their competitor)
5) Some people consume very few health care resources where others can have procedures that consume many lifetimes of income
6) Some aspects of a person's health are entirely externally driven (e.g. bad genes)
7) Some aspects of a person's health have a large voluntary component (e.g. smokers, obesity, etc.)
8 ) In the spectrum of health care, one system is generally expected to cover mundane expected daily expenses (e.g. standard medications, visits for the flu, vaccines), seemingly random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. a quadruple bypass or reattachment of a lost hand), and even seemingly expected fantastically huge expenses (e.g. having a child), plus seemingly expected yet random fantastically huge expenses (e.g. said child is a preemie requiring 3 weeks in ICU). No other system that comes to mind that is expected to deal with such diversity - for example your car insurance is not expected to pay for your oil changes or to fill up your gas tank, your home owner's insurance doesn't pay to repaint the baby's room, your life insurance doesn't pay for your insulin (although maybe it should...)
9) Health care costs are largely driven by one growing segment of society (the old) creating automatic tension with the rest
10) entry to the health care field has a multi-year lead time, so the response time to an increase in demand is delayed despite financial incentives
To me, this problem is far more difficult to deal with than energy or global warming. The internal conflicts in the above points (and others I can't think of right now) make it easy to attack any position set forth, if a guy enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate like I do.
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Indy, that was a fantastic summary of the issues, and yes, they all have "internal conflicts." I tend to overgeneralize in my arguments; I am more a rhetorician (where generalization is necessary) than a technician (where attention to great detail is vital). I get passionate about the health care debate knowing full well that my beliefs really don't make sound economic sense. But they come from my conscience. For example, I use a simple line of reasoning to boil down government's relationship to health care: Government is composed of "units," namely human beings. Human beings are mortal creatures who get sick, just like machine parts that wear down and fail. Government also depends on healthy people to achieve its functions, whether military, economic, administrative or financial. For that reason, government has an interest in keeping the population relatively healthy. After all, the machine can't function without functioning units, and no one benefits when people don't work due to sickness, or worse, when they die. Dead people pay no taxes (well, maybe a one-time estate tax). Government would be wise to subsidize the health of its citizens so as to preserve the very human units that compose it. I think this is a possibility in a free market system, because private individuals could always opt for more expensive health coverage. But working people who happen to have a misfortune should not have to confront a lifetime nightmare of endless bills; they should receive free care from the government if they cannot afford otherwise.
Last year the doctor told me I had skin cancer on my right temple. At the time, I was working as a consultant with very basic health coverage. The hospital performed a relatively routine operation to remove the bad tissue (it was successful). Afterward, my health plan refused to cover it and I got stuck with a $21,000 bill for an operation that lasted 45 minutes under local anaesthesia. For months I haggled with insensitive hospital "billing staff" who kept on repeating: "So how would you like to pay for this? So how would you like to pay for this?" I told them I didn't have remotely close to that amount saved. They responded: "So how would you like to pay for this?" Eventually I sent enough letters and raised enough of a stink to convince the right hospital bureaucrats that I could not pay the bill, and they wrote it off.
Just imagine what other people go through for more serious operations. It is not an answer to say "buy better health coverage." Even employed people don't get the same coverage they used to, and unemployed people can't afford $450 a month for decent coverage. My mother is a cancer survivor and widow who pays $700 a month for extremely basic coverage. Thankfully she has a little money saved from my Dad's life insurance policy, but if she had a serious illness, she'd be out on the street. As my old evidence professor used to say: "Many Americans are just one illness away from bankruptcy."
This is a shameful state of affairs, and no talk about economic incentives or doctor profitability will shake my beliefs on it. Doctors should not be in the field because they want Mercedes-Benz cars and luxury condos. They should be in the profession because they want to ease others' pain and cure diseases. Government has an interest in those goals, too, and if private people can't cough up the cash to get it done, then the Government should. Even Nazi Germany provided health care to its citizens. We manage to pay incredible amounts every month to sustain a pointless war. Why can't government increase funding for health care? I think more Americans would prefer to know that they will not go bankrupt from illness than to blindly fight insurgents in a war that has nothing to do with the United States. If taxes must increase, let them. At least we will get something for our money, rather than the bodies of slain soldiers.
Now THAT's rhetoric! 8O
Last year the doctor told me I had skin cancer on my right temple. At the time, I was working as a consultant with very basic health coverage. The hospital performed a relatively routine operation to remove the bad tissue (it was successful). Afterward, my health plan refused to cover it and I got stuck with a $21,000 bill for an operation that lasted 45 minutes under local anaesthesia. For months I haggled with insensitive hospital "billing staff" who kept on repeating: "So how would you like to pay for this? So how would you like to pay for this?" I told them I didn't have remotely close to that amount saved. They responded: "So how would you like to pay for this?" Eventually I sent enough letters and raised enough of a stink to convince the right hospital bureaucrats that I could not pay the bill, and they wrote it off.
Just imagine what other people go through for more serious operations. It is not an answer to say "buy better health coverage." Even employed people don't get the same coverage they used to, and unemployed people can't afford $450 a month for decent coverage. My mother is a cancer survivor and widow who pays $700 a month for extremely basic coverage. Thankfully she has a little money saved from my Dad's life insurance policy, but if she had a serious illness, she'd be out on the street. As my old evidence professor used to say: "Many Americans are just one illness away from bankruptcy."
This is a shameful state of affairs, and no talk about economic incentives or doctor profitability will shake my beliefs on it. Doctors should not be in the field because they want Mercedes-Benz cars and luxury condos. They should be in the profession because they want to ease others' pain and cure diseases. Government has an interest in those goals, too, and if private people can't cough up the cash to get it done, then the Government should. Even Nazi Germany provided health care to its citizens. We manage to pay incredible amounts every month to sustain a pointless war. Why can't government increase funding for health care? I think more Americans would prefer to know that they will not go bankrupt from illness than to blindly fight insurgents in a war that has nothing to do with the United States. If taxes must increase, let them. At least we will get something for our money, rather than the bodies of slain soldiers.
Now THAT's rhetoric! 8O
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-
Soccerman771
- N3O Officer
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:25 am
- Location: Sachse, Texas (near Dallas)
- Contact:
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?
jtackel@hotmail.com
"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga
"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th
"Do you know how difficult it is to micro Napalm?" - Lazy_Tuga
"This isn't going to work. I've picked a water deck and there isn't even a pond on this map." - Blackadderthe4th
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
If you find "Mr. Owl" in the Tootsie roll commercials credible, than the answer would be 3. Speaking from life experience, I don't have a clue... :?
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
If you find "Mr. Owl" in the Tootsie roll commercials credible, than the answer would be 3. Speaking from life experience, I don't have a clue... :?
"Nature doesn't like Agra forts." - Sporting Lisbon
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria. - Ben Franklin
-
LoN_Colossus
- Sergeant
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:27 pm
- Location: UK
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""cleeduz""][quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
If you find "Mr. Owl" in the Tootsie roll commercials credible, than the answer would be 3. Speaking from life experience, I don't have a clue... :?[/quote]95 < the amount of licks < 1634
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
If you find "Mr. Owl" in the Tootsie roll commercials credible, than the answer would be 3. Speaking from life experience, I don't have a clue... :?[/quote]95 < the amount of licks < 1634
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?
"Could you, would you, with a goat? Would you, could you, on a boat?" Doctor Seuss
"Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?"
George Wallace
"Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?"
George Wallace
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
the world may never know
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
the world may never know
-
GeneralMichael
- N3O Member
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:26 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Steam: MDSamurai12
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
[quote=""ruminator""][quote=""Soccerman771""]I long for the days when the threads turned to alcohol......
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?[/quote]
Depends on how long it takes to load. Also I'm sure they will be discussing long into the match maybe even after the match is over. So the number of minutes of thier discussion will well exceed the number of uhlans that the Kaiser will spam. Even if he spans over 200 in a game.
However, nice read. Now for another contribution:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?[/quote]
I wonder, when Indy and Kaiser are in the lobby waiting for their N30 league match, how long do you think they will discuss philosophy for before going into the game? Will the number of minutes exceed the number of uhlans spammed by Kaiser when the game does eventually commence?[/quote]
Depends on how long it takes to load. Also I'm sure they will be discussing long into the match maybe even after the match is over. So the number of minutes of thier discussion will well exceed the number of uhlans that the Kaiser will spam. Even if he spans over 200 in a game.
-
GeneralMichael
- N3O Member
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:26 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Steam: MDSamurai12
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Who is this she in she sells sea shells by the sea shore? Also why does she sell sea shells by the sea shore where people can get them for free?
One more question for those who believe in the Big Bang Theory. What started the Big Bang?
Yes I know I left myself wide open for many your mom jokes please try to restrain yourself from posting those as answers
One more question for those who believe in the Big Bang Theory. What started the Big Bang?
Yes I know I left myself wide open for many your mom jokes please try to restrain yourself from posting those as answers
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Kaiser,
Thank you for simplifying that. I was afraid we were going to have a long complex discussion.
Thank you for simplifying that. I was afraid we were going to have a long complex discussion.
Re: A thread for "Quick Questions"?
Kaiser,
I would note two fundamental disagreements with philosophies expressed in the points you made:
1) you moved from the assumption that government is composed of units, and that in the interest of government those units should operate efficiently. What if your basic assumption was that the units operate independently of government, and that government is only a necessary organizational structure to keep units from killing each other, and that optimal operation of the government is not a worthy goal (at least not worthy enough to wipe out other optimizations such as the liberty of units).
1a) what if I ended all of my questions in a not-question mark.
2) Do you think we should wait and hope that the type of doctors we wish would appear will do so (ie go into the field because they care about others), even if that means that we have fewer total doctors?
I do agree the situation is pretty shameful. I didn't have your specific experience - but I was on my own for health care coverage for two years while having babies 4 and 5. That was definitely some stress, and I definitely experienced firsthand some of the flaws in our system.
I would note two fundamental disagreements with philosophies expressed in the points you made:
1) you moved from the assumption that government is composed of units, and that in the interest of government those units should operate efficiently. What if your basic assumption was that the units operate independently of government, and that government is only a necessary organizational structure to keep units from killing each other, and that optimal operation of the government is not a worthy goal (at least not worthy enough to wipe out other optimizations such as the liberty of units).
1a) what if I ended all of my questions in a not-question mark.
2) Do you think we should wait and hope that the type of doctors we wish would appear will do so (ie go into the field because they care about others), even if that means that we have fewer total doctors?
I do agree the situation is pretty shameful. I didn't have your specific experience - but I was on my own for health care coverage for two years while having babies 4 and 5. That was definitely some stress, and I definitely experienced firsthand some of the flaws in our system.