High Cost of Health Insurance

OK, so that was not BBW's idea to differentiate between the two?? :smt037

 

I don't feel the two can be separated in the real world. Humanity simply does better with these separations. At the end of the day, you need to solve a problem. Both principle are likely to do it.
Scientist don't simply dream, they do as well.
Engineers don't simply do, they dream as well.

 

Me too!

 

This is not true Paniro, it is not 2018 yet. Here are the facts

The controversy over those cushy Cadillac insurance plans just keeps on running. Here are the details: The bill places a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored plans – specifically there’s a 40 percent tax on the value of plans above $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families, starting in 2018. The tax falls on insurers, but would be passed along to policyholders one way or another. First, the thresholds were increased after union leaders lobbied for them, which led Republican leaders to charge that the new tax was a sweetheart deal for labor — and they were increased again for the final bill. But the tax would affect mainly nonunion workers, according to an analysis partly authored by a former Bush adviser. Under even lower thresholds than the bill has now, union workers would have made up only 17 percent of those affected by the tax in 2019, the analysis said.
Of course, liberal groups and union leaders have made misleading claims about this Cadillac tax, saying it would really hit middle-class workers – lots of them. But economists in general back this idea, and the thinking behind it isn’t to raise money by slamming workers with a 40 percent tax. On the contrary, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office believe the tax will boost paychecks. They say the existence of the tax will prompt employers and employees to choose less expensive health plans. In lieu of the higher cost benefits, employers will raise salaries. And that’s how the government really makes its revenue here: on payroll and income taxes on those higher paychecks.

 

Yeah, call me cynical, but I don't see that happening.

Also, what that poster said about the Flexible Spending Account being reduced by 50% is absolutely true and goes into affect January 1, 2013.

I would love to see how that benefits the middle class as that cuts down on pre-tax dollars being used for things like childcare and other health care related claims. I see that as only benefiting the government who gains more taxable dollars on those who use the FSAs.

 

Well Books, Jonathan Gruber, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has provided health care policy advice to both Obama and Romney during his governorship of Massachusetts, estimated this using Joint Committee on Taxation data for an early version of the health care bill. He found that penalty revenues would total $201 billion from 2013 to 2019, compared to wage increases of $313 billion.

As for the cap on FSA's, Americans for Tax Reform, as ATR itself says: "For most people, the $2500 cap won’t be noticed." As ATR concedes, FSAs "tend to be used for things like small deductibles, co-payments, eyeglasses, over-the-counter medicines, and laser eye surgery." The amount deferred in the typical FSA is probably much less than $2500 today, ATR says. So the cap probably wont have much of an affect.

 

Do you really think that a scientist equals someone that sits around thinking and theorizing, not being able to prove any of it and not applied??? Extremely little of sciences is strictly theoretical. The vast majority of sciences are theoretical and applied... practically... directly.

To be strict with interpretations: someone that strictly only do theory is truly doing philosophy, not science. If you can not prove it or apply it, its no longer really science. Science may start as philosophy but once the theory is laid and go into a practical project, its no longer philosophy, its science.
Science contain philosophy, philosophy does not contain science however.

Or: A philosophical inquiry depends on logic.

A scientific inquiry depends on demonstrable and reproducible hard evidence.

That was fun, now Ima gonna go to be to go to a scientific conference tomorrow. Stuff that acctually has been proven by scientists, not unproven, theory by philosophers.:smt043

 

:?

 

Then how do you feel about quantum mechanics?

 

I love quantum physics, still philosophy as you cant prove it. Scientists may be able to prove it. If that happens, its science...... Once they have proven it - Engineers can have at it.

 

phi·los·o·phy? ?[fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.
1.
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
2.
any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.
3.
a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.
4.
the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.
5.
a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

sci·ence? ?[sahy-uhns]
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

It can be disputed by people that are hard core string theory etc is science.. Its not science until its PROVEN. That is the definition of science today. I LOVE the string theory and believe it to be true.. but if you pay heed to the CLEAR definition between science and philosophy, its still philosophy by the clear definition of science. Saty , you should know this.

 

Thanks for providing a definition from an online dictionary, but I am perfectly aware of the contemporary differences that have emerged between philosophy and science since the eighteenth century. I am also aware of the provisional characteristic of knowledge within science, as models with their background assumptions (i.e. paradigms) give way to newer models with greater explanatory power. Aristotelian physics superseded, for example, by Newtonian physics and the Newtonian model giving way to relativity and quantum mechanics.

That said, philosophy ("the mother of all sciences") employs mathematical science and uses proofs to provide just one example.

 

Well, I added the on line definition to make a point.

Contemporary, people usually lump much of philosophy and science together, but by definition its really not.
Even in Novas special about string theory, the string theorists say that. They are scientists, but even they say that by definition, its not science as it can not be proven. Yet.

I don't discredit philosophy in any way, shape or form, quite the opposite actually as that is how science starts, as I mentioned in my earlier post, so of course I know its the mother of science. Without philosophy, there would be no science.
There is a very grey area where they float together. You can view that however you want,, but I stick with the definition.

 

Well, there are numerous provisions that have already gone into effect,
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/nov/02/obama-and-romney-obamacare/. With costs spiraling out of control, sweeping reform was called for by most politicians, which means there will be speculation regarding the future affects of any reform. Not sure why you would say it looks like it will fall on its face, Economists from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published a report in January 2012 that said health care spending grew less in 2009 and 2010 than any time in 51 years. Preliminary estimates for 2011 show the same trend.

 

After the discussion w Saty and TDK, I went on to do a little (re)search lol on stuff and found this:

http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=2&Thread=1032

I am sure you guys would love to read it - there is an article and a forum discussion regarding science/philosophy there that I found incredibly interesting.

 

REPPED

 

Thank you DK, I found it extremely interesting. LOVE discussions like that! Glad you liked it.

 

Its confirmed my thought process on the topic. If science in fact gives us the how things work, something is also in place for the why. Why creates the abstract, the intangible, the philosophy. You and I must hookah one day.

 

I agree w you there. Science does not care for the why. That is why I believe philosophy should not be lumped into science - that devaluates philosophy.
It stands on its own. Of course they overlap, just as science and engineering also do.. .. But without philospophy, science and engineering would not exists - heck, very little we have today would exist . They are all separate entities, but they do overlap.
I also agree on the hokkah session. LOL

 

Just having a little fun even though I helped cause the train crash.