Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

Healthcare in the US is some of the most expensive in the world, but it's also BY FAR the best.

I don't think that it can be argued that the United States provides some of the best healthcare services in the world, but the issue is that it is too expensive.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the services, but the healthcare/insurance system is screwed up. I admit I wouldn't know how to fix it ( and I doubt that a lot of people would either ), but all I can tell you: what it comes down to, we are required to pay expensive insurance rates or healthcare service payments or we risk ours and our loved ones' health.

And let the comments about naivity come pouring in! :)

I don't need to know insurance business, because all business is the same: profits rule, and nothing else matters. It's a flaw in the corporate model (you probably learned about that in ethics).

A flaw in the corporate model??? Any business owner's goal is to have his business succeed - success in business is typically measured by one's profit.

For the purpose of discussion I'll ignore the flawed, gross over-generalization that "nothing else matters." Pursuit of profit is not a flaw, it's the natural outworking of the pursuit of success. Maybe in a eutopian world every business would solely exist for the good of mankind, but we live on the planet earth where money is kind of important.

As a side rant while I'm thinking about it, it always blows me away at how mad people get at Microsoft for apparently being wealthy and successful. Microsoft simply did better business than everyone else and reaped the rewards - should we expect a successful company to just start giving things away when they reach a certain level of wealth? That totally flies in the face of the mindset that got that company there in the first place. Why the hell do people get angry at businesses succeeding? It's what makes the opportunitites and benefits that we enjoy possible.

That is my opinion and I base it on my own experiences and principles...basically the same thing anyone bases any opinion on.


I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

A flaw in the corporate model??? Any business owner's goal is to have his business succeed - success in business is typically measured by one's profit.

For the purpose of discussion I'll ignore the flawed, gross over-generalization that "nothing else matters." Pursuit of profit is not a flaw, it's the natural outworking of the pursuit of success. Maybe in a eutopian world every business would solely exist for the good of mankind, but we live on the planet earth where money is kind of important.

As a side rant while I'm thinking about it, it always blows me away at how mad people get at Microsoft for apparently being wealthy and successful. Microsoft simply did better business than everyone else and reaped the rewards - should we expect a successful company to just start giving things away when they reach a certain level of wealth? That totally flies in the face of the mindset that got that company there in the first place. Why the hell do people get angry at businesses succeeding? It's what makes the opportunitites and benefits that we enjoy possible.

There is not anything wrong with the pursuit of profit, but there just seems to be something off with combining the pursuit of greater profit and healthcare. Don't get me wrong : doctors and all the healthcare workers deserve what they get paid, but trying to gain as much money out of anything you can just seems wrong to me. And this is mainly aimed at the corporate and committee heads that focus on the bottomline.

I'm sorry, I thought maybe it had a basis in constitution law, government models, hisotry or some other form of rational thought.

I'm on a spree of side-rants today: why won't people just argue their belief as opposed to chalking up to "oh it's my opinion and I guess we just have differing views." FIGHT and argue your damn viewpoint if you think you're right, I'd have alot more respect for that than this spineless capitulation of agreeing to disagree.

If the founders of this country just decided that their opinion differed from that of merry ol' England and left it at that, we'd all be drinking tea and driving on the wrong side of the road.

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed. (and you also employ the slippery slope fallacy :))

There is not anything wrong with the pursuit of profit, but there just seems to be something off with combining the pursuit of greater profit and healthcare. Don't get me wrong : doctors and all the healthcare workers deserve what they get paid, but trying to gain as much money out of anything you can just seems wrong to me. And this is mainly aimed at the corporate and committee head that focus on the bottomline.

AMEN!

A flaw in the corporate model??? Any business owner's goal is to have his business succeed - success in business is typically measured by one's profit.

For the purpose of discussion I'll ignore the flawed, gross over-generalization that "nothing else matters."

Take a look at the Ford Pinto case.

This is not the place to "fight" for what I believe in. Besides, I can do a much better job when I can reply instantly (and not have to wait and then type my response).

Oh, and my "experiences and principles" are based on rational thought. Look up the ad hominem fallacy and you'll see that your argument is flawed.

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay :offtopic:

It's pretty unusual to be able to argue a point better in person than through the written word. Very few debaters are capable of addressing each logical premise in sequence, draw conclusions and identify fallacious reasoning on the fly and in person. The written word provides a much higher degree of precision and referential ability than an oral debate.

You must have a remarkably unusual ability to argue orally or perhaps, like many, you use the ambiguity of speech to your advantage.

Thanks for the Philosophy 101 lesson - unfortunately my previous post exhibits no sign of an Ad Hominem attack, primarily because no argument was made. I made an inocuous, largely sarcastic comment that was in no way an attack on your person, thus no Ad Hominem.

I asked a question, you replied, I responded in sarcastic apology - no argument was formed or proposed. In the future it might be helpful to look up the fallacy yourself prior to using the term.

I'm done with this thread unless someone starts a "Healthcare Reform" thread in the Warpath Parking lot. This sucker has gone waaaaaaaaay :offtopic:

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first ;) *sarcasm*).

My feeling is that governmentally, there is not a reason to force people to wear helmets. Common sensically (look it up, it's a word), one would be foolish not to.

Ok, then anyone who chooses to ride without a helmet should be uninsurable. Just like morons who build homes in hurricane alleys or flood plains.

Personal freedom is fine, but I don't want to have to pay for mistakes made by someone else who was exercising their right to personal freedom. I feel for the guy, but that's not going to make him whole again. I doubt seriously that he will be ready to play in September.