What do you think are the advantages of U.S. universal health care? What are the disadvantages?

My Opinion

I have a hard time seeing how universal health care (UHC) will reduce costs. Electronic records might, but that is distinct from UHC. When more people are covered, demand will increase. And if pre-existing restrictions are forbidden, cost to insurance companies increase, which increases the premium.

In other words, I don’t see UHC as reducing the cost — though I’d be pleasantly surprised if it did. Just doesn’t seem like an economical reality. This seems to me the biggest disadvantage.

If costs are capped through government mandate, then quality will go down. See rent control for examples on why that’s so. TINSTAAFL — there is no such thing as a free lunch. Something always has to give. It will also reduce incentive for drug companies to spend the necessary money to create new drugs if they can’t make a profit. Right now the US leads in creating life-saving drugs because of the economical incentives. If those incentives go away, then that will very likely go away.

My preferred solution is a health savings account system with high deductible major medical coverage (~$5k/yr), supplemented with reformed Medicare & Medicaid programs for those who cannot afford HSAs. This gives incentives for people to only go to the doctor when necessary (though preventative visits are free), thus keeping demand down and controlling costs. People can keep the money and roll the extra into an IRA if they do not spend it — which is better than always going to a premium.

But I’m a libertarian, so I tend to side with things that make people responsible, instead of massive government programs.

On the other hand, I’m willing to give the currently proposed method of UHC a chance. I’m not an expert in economics, and I’m probably misunderstanding many things. I know our politicians are trying to do what is in the best interest of Americans (or at least I hope so!), and maybe extending the coverage pool and encouraging preventive medicine will balance the health care budget.

But I doubt it. It’s going to cost us one way or another. The question is, is that cost worth making sure every American has health care insurance?

What do you think?

I thought he did a great job of keeping people calm and explaining his perspective.

It’s hard — sometimes impossible — to argue with unreasonable people. What have you found effective when arguing with angry people of opposing viewpoints?

(via)

If this doesn’t make sense, watch this video.

(via)

It’s good to have healthy debate. But some people are not wiling to be open about this issue —  it is much like fundamentalists who refuse to question their own faith. When you discuss health care with these people, they stop thinking critically and use labels like “socialism” and “death panels” to stop the argument.

In my experience it’s rare to have rational conversations with people like that — they refuse to even consider what you have to say. Which brings me to this girl who accuses Barney Frank of following “nazism” (aka Obama’s health plan):

How can you get through to someone like that? They’re completely brainwashed. It’s virtually impossible to get them to consider your viewpoint. So we revert to ridicule, which doesn’t convince them they are wrong either.

Is there a better way? Or is that all that’s left for these people?

I’ve seen a couple trailers in the past but honestly, it looked really amateur and I didn’t give it much thought. But I recently noticed that Darren has posted the first 13 minutes of the film, and I was pleasantly surprised at what I saw:

What do you think about it? Is it something you plan on seeing?

There are five golden rules to being a great debater:

1. Drink liquor.

….But if you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You’ll be a WEALTH of information. You’ll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

2. Make things up.

DON’T say: “I think Peruvians are underpaid.” Say instead: “The average Peruvian’s salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level.”

3. Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.

You should memorize some Latin abbreviations such as “Q.E.D.”, “e.g.”, and “i.e.” These are all short for “I speak Latin, and you don’t.”….

Suppose you want to say, “Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don’t have enough money.”

You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, “Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Ergo, ipso facto, case closed. Q.E.D.”

4. Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.

You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are: You’re begging the question; You’re being defensive; Don’t compare apples to oranges; What are your parameters?

5. Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, “That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say,” or “You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”

It seems our creationist friends’ secret playbook is the advice of Dave Barry! Well, except for the first one, which is a shame, because it would make them even more amusing.

Will humanity conquer death, either organically or digitally?

I think either have a possibility. We might be able to regrow our bodies/organs and if necessary transfer our memories or our brain.

Or we could build some kind of matrix where our memories could be stored digitally. Of the two, I certainly prefer the organic option!

What do you think? Is it possible?

I recently went from Christianity to Agnosticism, and have taken a lot of heat for it from family friends. They really attempt to make me feel extremely bad for the way I believe. I am not sure where they see it is right to treat other people this way, but nonetheless, nothing will change the way they think.

How you deal with criticism, especially from people who are close to you?

This is a situation that many of us have to deal with. Here is my advice:

Don’t Return Criticism

This seems obvious, but it’s easy to forget. When someone criticizes us, we want to criticize them in return — or at least complain about them. Fight that urge. It doesn’t solve anything and creates a vicious circle.

Be Sympathetic

Remember that you probably once thought like they do. You know how they feel and why — they’re trying to help you in their misguided way. This should make you sympathetic instead of angry, which means you’ll be happier and less likely to say things you’ll regret.

Talk to Them Privately

Pullquote: Explain that social pressure and bullying is not going to change your mind, because you reject Christianity for intellectual reasons, not relational.

If a family member or friend is constantly pressuring you and/or making barbed comments, have a private conversation with them about it. Tell them their methods are ineffective and damaging to your relationship.

Explain that you love talking and debating, but social pressure and bullying is not going to change your mind, because you reject Christianity for intellectual reasons, not relational.

Disagree Calmly

Whenever you get into an argument, never raise your voice. Listen to what they have to say, consider it, and respond calmly. If they get angry, ask them also to be calm. This keeps the tone civil and keeps things from getting out of hand. If things get uncomfortable, insert a joke to lighten the mood.

Emphasize Your Open-Mindedness

You are open to believing anything if there is evidence for it — tell them that again and again. And be sure to act on that open-mindedness. They won’t criticize you if you are willing to seriously consider what they have to say.

Admit When You’re Wrong

Pullquote: It’s hard to criticize someone who is willing to admit they’re wrong.

Whenever you realize you are wrong, admit it. It’s hard to criticize someone who is willing to admit they’re wrong. It also makes it easier for others to admit they are wrong. As Dale Carnegie said:

You will never get into trouble by admitting that you may be wrong. That will stop all argument and inspire your opponent to be just as fair and open and broad-minded as you are. It will make him want to admit that he, too, may be wrong.

Don’t Tell Them They’re Wrong

I don’t think anyone has ever changed their mind because someone said, “You’re wrong!” That doesn’t change minds — it closes them. It puts people on the defensive. It hurts their pride. It also makes them dislike you.

Instead, use tact. Try to understand things from their perspective. Ask them to explain their beliefs and why they hold them. Perhaps through questioning you will show them their position is illogical or cannot be supported by facts. But don’t just tell them they are wrong. That’s an easy way to make an enemy.

Listen, Listen, Listen

Don’t be a bore — you know, the guy with the inflated ego who loves the sound of his own voice. If you want someone to listen to you, you must listen to them. Don’t interrupt to interject your witty insight or fact correction. Have the respect to listen to others the way you want them to listen to you.

Focus on Areas of Agreement

Pullquote: Instead of emphasizing where you disagree, emphasize where you agree.

Always end on a note of agreement. You may not agree with them about the resurrection of Jesus, but you both can agree that it is a hard thing to believe — even Thomas doubted, after all. You can agree that it is good to question things and make sure there is sufficient evidence to believe in it. And so on.

Instead of emphasizing where you disagree, emphasize where you agree.

Love Them Anyway

Life is too short to make enemies of friends. If possible, ignore their vices and enjoy their virtues.

What’s Your Advice?

What do you do in these situations? Do you have any advice that might be helpful to those who have family or friends pressuring and/or criticizing them?

Last month, the UN human rights council adopted a resolution condemning “defamation of religion” as a human rights violation. According to the text of the resolution, “Defamation of religion is a serious affront to human dignity” that leads to “a restriction on the freedom of [religions'] adherents.”

The resolution was originally proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and was put to the human rights council by Pakistan. It supports that it was aimed at such things as the derogatory cartoons of the prophet Muhammad published in a Danish newspaper three years ago.

Germany opposed the resolution. Speaking on behalf of the European Union, a German spokesperson rejected the concept of “defamation of religion” as not valid in a human rights context, because human rights belonged to individuals, not to institutions or religions.

Many non-government organisations, both secular and religious, also opposed the resolution. Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, said that that body saw the resolution as weakening “the rights of individuals to express their views”.

This seems like a sound argument. While attempts to stir up hatred against adherents of a religion, or to incite violence against them, may legitimately be suppressed, criticism of religion as such should not be.

I agree with Singer. Hate speech — that is, speech that incites violence through hatred and slander — should be opposed. But there also needs to be generous freedom to critique and condemn beliefs. When we err, we should err on the side of freedom.

I’ve been in similar in situations, and I can’t keep my mouth shut for long, either.

Finally, poetry I can appreciate!

1. If you have a website aimed at deconversion stories welcome Muslims as well as non-Christians.
2. If you’re going to write about Islam, try to learn about it from a Muslim perspective.
3. Leave off the “Muhammad was a pedophile” stuff.
4. Remember that at the end of the day, we still have family and friends who are Muslim.
5. Tone down the language you use: ”A lot of former Muslims are people who converted to the religion as teens and adults. Saying that only idiots can possibly be Muslims doesn’t help them.” 
6. Maintain a high standard of integrity and intellectual honesty when dealing with Islam, especially when criticizing it.
7. Take the criticism of former Muslims seriously and with an open mind.
8. Safety is a concern. Maintain your friends’ anonymity.
9. Restrain your impulse to probe for the sensational unless the person offers it.

I think we would all do well to heed this advice.

So, believers, here is your chance to convince us atheists there is a God. Pitch your best case for why we should believe in a deity — and not just in a deity, but the one you happen to believe in.

As I’ve said before, if there was verifiable evidence of God’s existence, I would happily believe in him/her/it. My desire is to believe whatever is true. I’m sure many of my readers feel the same way.

So, if you think we’re wrong, then convince us with evidence and arguments that will persuade us. We’re listening.