You can have additional private health insurance. However, there isn't really a need to do so and it I believe it to be a waste of money since the principal things are taken care of already. It's more of a luxury that comes up for your deductibles and prescription fees. Nobody I know has one so I can't really tell how hard/easy it is to get one and how expensive it is. A middle class U.S. citizen wouldn't buy a second health insurance if he already got one either.
There needs to be a safety net for the poor (and even the middle-class these days) to have SOME KIND of coverage, even if it isn't ideal. Something is better than nothing...
Do you have any independant studies which show that such a health care system would be an improvement to our current system? We need to look at the whole issue, not just the potential dangers of living without health care. How efficiently will our medical supplies be used? Will doctors get pay decreases? How will said decreases effect the willingness of our top doctors to stay practicing in our country and not go elsewhere? Will wait times actually decrease the quality of our healthcare? Why should regularly healthy people pay the bills of the chronically ill? These and more are all questions that need to be asked before we blindly form a decision because it feels good. Use rationality, not emotions when making decisions.
For those who live in a socialized medicine country, do you also have access to private health insurance? If so is it a real pain to get, expensive, easy to get, etc... ???
It can't be much more expensive than health care in USA (I'm hoping).
I just want to know what happens to the health insurance companies when universal health care shows up. Is it still possible to get health insurance? Do business's just shrug their shoulders and say, "health care? Not our problem, talk to the bureaucrats."
There needs to be a safety net for the poor (and even the middle-class these days) to have SOME KIND of coverage, even if it isn't ideal. Something is better than nothing...
Do you have any independant studies which show that such a health care system would be an improvement to our current system? We need to look at the whole issues, not just the potential dangers of living without health care. How efficiently will our medical supplies be used? Will doctors get pay decreases? How will said decreases effect the willingness of our top doctors to stay practicing in our country and not go elsewhere? Will wait times actually decrease the quality of our healthcare? These and more are all questions that need to be asked before we decided blindly on a decision because it feels good. Use rationality, not emotions when making decisions.
I think the fact that so many systems do work acts as their own case study, and that an incredibly small minority fo people in nations with socialized healthcare want to change their systems to a private system speaks volumes. Why do a case study, when we have REAL, THRIVING examples? You can consider Norway, Canada, the UK, and France all excellent case studies.
Why do a case study, when we have REAL, THRIVING examples? You can consider Norway, Canada, the UK, and France all excellent case studies.
Why are the excellent case studies? What evidence do you have that they work other than some people say they are happy? I need evidence and data, my friend.
Steve, don't feel bad. It's hard not being a commie pinko bastard while on the internet. I know your pain.
What an original, well-considered comment. Care to elaborate?
It was said with humor. I, like HMTKSteve, am fairly conservative. Look at the internet. Most of it is, in my experience, comprised of the farthest left-leaning individuals you will ever find.
most folks on the internet lean politically toward libertarian. Look at the Ron Paul phenomenon.
Nope. This is an excellent example of a small but vocal minority. You also need to define "on the internet". I'm sure enough conservatives use email to constitute a majority.
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation [a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs]. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth [the theory of evolution]. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions [the law of gravitation].link
synonymsHYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation [ahypothesisexplaining the extinction of the dinosaurs]. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth [thetheoryof evolution]. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions [thelawof gravitation].link
You just don't get it, do you. That's ok, we all know you are a closet Creationist anyways.
The word theory has different meaning based on it's context. In everyday language, yes, it is synonymous with hypothesis. But when talking about scientific theory, the meaning changes greatly. For example, gravitation is so often inaccurately called a "law" in every day context but any scientist will tell you that gravitation is indeed a theory. To break it down:
In every day language: Hypothesis - a guess Theory - a guess Law- a rule
In science: Hypothesis - a testable claim Theory - an explanation for a testable phenomenon that is supported by all the evidence Law - a description of a phenomenon
synonymsHYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation [ahypothesisexplaining the extinction of the dinosaurs]. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth [thetheoryof evolution]. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions [thelawof gravitation].link
A theory is an explanatory model based on a large background of tested and verified data, spanning countless experiments over decades.
Don't pull this crap with scientists around. People use the word "theory" in common parlance when they should be using "conjecture" or "supposition." Even a hypothesis usually has some evidence behind it; no decent scientist makes wild or unverifiable claims at ANY level.
synonymsHYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation [ahypothesisexplaining the extinction of the dinosaurs]. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth [thetheoryof evolution]. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions [thelawof gravitation].link
A theory is an explanatory model based on a large background of tested and verified data, spanning countless experiments over decades.
Don't pull this crap with scientists around. People use the word "theory" in common parlance when they should be using "conjecture" or "supposition." Even a hypothesis usually has some evidence behind it; no decent scientist makes wild or unverifiable claims at ANY level.
Fair enough. I will assume that the author of the dictionary article is incorrect. I must say, though, that if someone who makes their living obsessing over minor variations in word usage can be mislead, it's not surprising that a politician would understand the word incorrectly.
It mostly has to do with the fact that a dictionary describes the usages of words in common English. Scientific language is sort of different than that, and the fact that we have the same word in both sets of language causes the confusion.
It's sort of the same way that "enumerate" has a very particular meaning in microbiology; it's similar to the common usage, but it has a very particular meaning in microbiology.
It mostly has to do with the fact that a dictionary describes the usages of words incommonEnglish. Scientific language is sort of different than that, and the fact that we have the same word in both sets of language causes the confusion.
It's sort of the same way that "enumerate" has a very particular meaning in microbiology; it's similar to the common usage, but it has averyparticular meaning in microbiology.
Quite understandable.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on scientific language reform? Do you think that the high learning curve to understanding specialist terminology limits interdisciplinary exchanges of ideas, or that it discourages understanding of the sciences among the general public?
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on scientific language reform? Do you think that the high learning curve to understanding specialist terminology limits interdisciplinary exchanges of ideas, or that it discourages understanding of the sciences among the general public?
You should have paid attention in third grade science class. This is not highly-specialized language.
Comments
Damn you The Beatles.
But, I do think most folks active enough on the internet to get into forum discussions tend to skew toward libertarian rather than progressive.
In every day language:
Hypothesis - a guess
Theory - a guess
Law- a rule
In science:
Hypothesis - a testable claim
Theory - an explanation for a testable phenomenon that is supported by all the evidence
Law - a description of a phenomenon
Don't pull this crap with scientists around. People use the word "theory" in common parlance when they should be using "conjecture" or "supposition." Even a hypothesis usually has some evidence behind it; no decent scientist makes wild or unverifiable claims at ANY level.
It's sort of the same way that "enumerate" has a very particular meaning in microbiology; it's similar to the common usage, but it has a very particular meaning in microbiology.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on scientific language reform? Do you think that the high learning curve to understanding specialist terminology limits interdisciplinary exchanges of ideas, or that it discourages understanding of the sciences among the general public?