Obama Care Vs Affordable care act.

[packsaddle]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Stosh, EagleCat educated you as to what evolution is and you ignored him. The fact that bacteria have evolved in the lab nevertheless IS an example of evolution. I gave you an example of evolving mosquitoes (your original organism) and you ignored that. I'm beginning to wonder...are you Rooster7?

Edit to add: Here is another example of observed evolution, not bacteria: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

[Stosh]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

Packsaddle,

 

I did carefully read what EagleCat had to say, and it's all true. But mutations/adaptations over time should have produced far more varieties, after all biological evolution takes billions upon billions of years to come about. While not all mutations are viable (deformities), others are unsustainable (unable to reproduce, i.e. mules) while others may have survived, but killed off by "survival of the fittest". This all seems plausible as a hypothesis and that is the lure of the theory. Yet so far, through environmental alterations and genetic alterations, science has been able to produce mutations and maybe even some adaptations, but like the fruit fly experiments and maybe the E. Coli experiment, none of the scientific attempts have produced any superior fruit flies or bacteria. The study may not have yet been finished, but were any of the adapted bacteria sustainable and were they superior to the original? I didn't see any conclusions drawn that were proposed.

 

The next step for accepted science is: is the experiment repeatable producing the same results. Well, we can wait another 15 years to see if it happens. I'm thinking it might not, but the jury is still out.

 

So, we can't approach it definitively in the laboratory, but we do have the archeological record. We have snap shots here and there of the various "prior" species from which the modern species is supposed to have been derived from. But what about the time periods in between which show the link between the two. Archeologists are having a difficult time coming up with any of these links.

 

There was a study done a few years back, maybe even more recent than that which showed interbreeding between Homo Sapien and Neanderthal. Some DNA confirms it, but that only showed interbreeding, not evolution from Neanderthal to Homo Sapien. What it does show is two species and one became extinct or absorb partially into another species through interbreeding. Two species producing a hybrid is not evolution, it's only hybridization. So hypothetically if we had 100 species in the past and now we have 500, maybe only 200 because of extinction or non-viable. Is that evolution through mutation/adaptation or is it hybridization? Again, jury is still out on that.

 

Of course, speculative on both counts, modern species may have developed as a result of evolution over time, long time, on a coincidental basis through random mutations (evolution) or it may have been a result of catastrophism (short creation) and the variations we see today are hybridizations.

 

The catastrophism camp says that the world is far to complex to be explained as random coincidence could provide.

 

However, evolution relies on a long period of time to develop. Catastrophism doesn't. Science has yet to discover how to measure that. The age of the earth is put at about 4.6 billion years, but that is a linearly estimated number. Even with the questionable RadioCarbon dating method, we can at best go back maybe 60,000 years. Everything is then extrapolated by a formula of estimations. There are other things that can't be measured, such as non-carbon material. We estimate the age of rocks by the extrapolated linear reverse evolution of animals found in the rock. All that is well and good until one realizes that the earth cannot accurately be measured linerally. How does one handle the multiple catasrophic events such as the one that is assumed to have wiped out dinosaurs all at one time? It kinda puts a glitch in the process of measurement. Because of the limits of time and inability to measure it, catastrophism can be scientifically viable as well.

 

Either way it takes a bit of assumption and belief to jump to some conclusion either way. This is why the debate rages on. Neither side has been able to settle the issue. I'm sure someday they'll figure it out, but for now both are scientifically viable yet not provable.

 

So, just for fun, let's put on our aluminum foil hats and go another route. Earth has a habitable environment but it is plagued by huge flesh eating nasties. So another alien life form comes in, destroys the predators and leaves a colony to be whatever, later on. Heck, we have a ton of questionable evidence that science doesn't have any idea what it is or how it fits in. But it's there and people are working on it. So if we're looking for coincidences. On all the major habitable continents, about 4,000 years ago, huge civilizations popped up, all very technologically advanced. Over the past 4,000 years humans have developed at a rate that far exceeds any time before that. Coincidental? Sure, why not.

 

Okay, you can take your caps off now.

 

One last thing. Every major civilization on every continent has also besides exploding technology always had some idea about a "god" of some sort as the master creator of whatever civilization that has resulted. Even as primitive tribal societies, all over the world, separated by major water barriers they had some "great spirit" creating and maintaining their civilizations. How come they all came to the same conclusion even when separated. If people think catastrophism is a hard myth to accept, I'm thinking a bunch of ape-like men siting around the campfire, sipping a brew just came out and decided there was going to be a god and the idea was so profound that they literally ran all over the world and told everyone else.

 

Don't cha think this speculation stuff is fun. However, none of it is provable scientifically, all three scenarios.

 

It just seems that catastrophism is the most plausible guess, but I kinda like the H. G. Wells version too.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

You might want to try that again after you look up the word 'archeology'....and read the article I cited.

[Stosh]

Here is something I just learned from my CPA, if you don't get a tax return from the IRS, you cannot be penalized for not having health insurance. This is a train wreck that is going to happen and I'm really curious how DC will frame it so that folks like Moose will defend it on forums. I'm not being disrespectful, pragmatically the facts are hard to dispute and my kids will suffer from it all. Barry

I kinda quit reading when I get to comments like "Smuckka heads". Sorry, bad habit of mine.

 

Stosh

[King Ding Dong]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

"after all biological evolution takes billions upon billions of years to come about. "

Um, no it doesn't.

[moosetracker]

Here is something I just learned from my CPA, if you don't get a tax return from the IRS, you cannot be penalized for not having health insurance. This is a train wreck that is going to happen and I'm really curious how DC will frame it so that folks like Moose will defend it on forums. I'm not being disrespectful, pragmatically the facts are hard to dispute and my kids will suffer from it all. Barry

Well, if you are going to panic over things that are not even true.. Smuckka Head is being nice.. I would call my own son or husband a smuckka head if they are not thinking rationally..

[moosetracker]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

Actually I am not a "fan" of the ACA.. I am just open minded to it, and feel something needs to be done and this is a step in the right direction.. What I am not a fan of is a the lies and fear mongering that the radical right is saying which can be proven to be untrue if you take two seconds to check out.. There is nothing to be said about people who are either believing it or not believing it but repeating it verbatum in an attempt to try to scare others.. When someone wants to spew falsehoods, I just feel compelled to correct them, either for their benifet (If they care to know the truth) or for the benefit of their victims who they are trying to scare by spewing it in the first place..

 

Now as for predictions of it working, I know whose predictions I will not believe.. Those same people who spew untruths that can easily be looked up and dispelled with 2 minutes of research, because they are just in the buisness of scaring people because they know in order for this to work it needs healthy people as well as unhealthy people to sign up.. So if they can scare enough people, then perhaps they can force their own negative predictions to come true..

[Stosh]

Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on.

 

Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on.

 

So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you?

 

Stosh

So after a careful explanation of where I'm coming from, the responses are, go back and read some article and a nope, you're wrong on the unmeasurable timeline.

 

Not much room left for any meaningful dialog.

 

Sorry, gentlemen, neither answer leaves much to discuss. It might have been fun.

 

It isn't going to keep me from commenting, which may indeed be the goal of this one-liner retorts and personal attacks by some, but it will pretty much curtail any serious dialog.

 

By the way, there's a ton of stuff in my comments that warranted a stronger response back that I have received from others who propose evolutionary theory elsewhere.

 

Stosh

[Brewmeister]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

I think you'll find that if you use the "Ignore user" functionality, the IQ rating on this thread (and many other posts) will go up by 30 or so points.

[Stosh]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

2 minutes of research?

 

Stosh

[JoeBob]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

Did Moose sell anybody on the ACA with that carefully worded reply?

 

I'm not trying to scare anyone - I'm the one who is afraid. If the results produced by the US Govt's effort to run healthcare so far are not scaring you, you are not paying attention.

 

Since I'm sure to be lumped into the 'Smuckka head' category and 'someone wants to spew falsehoods', please reconcile just one provable fact:

 

Obama 2010: "if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2013/10/25/cbs-horror-story-discredits-obamas-reassuring-phrase-about-keeping-he

- vs -

"8 million people will be dropped from their employer's insurance plans"

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/finance/2013/February/CBO-Millions-to-Lose-Insurance-Under-Obamacare/

 

The latest estimate was 18 Million will lose their plans.

[Stosh]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

Maybe the "plan" was not to provide health care for all people. What if the plan was to have the government provide health care for all people. The way things are going, it just might be true. As the costs skyrocket, don't worry about it, we can always nail the taxpayer down the road.

 

Stosh

[DigitalScout]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

 

Low income individuals and families (e.g., families of four with incomes under around $33,000) now qualify for Medicare. Others will get a subsidy to help pay for their new healthcare insurance.

 

Just because someone doesn't have healthcare insurance doesn't necessarily mean they can't afford it. It may be that they can afford insurance but choose to use the emergency room for healthcare which is a terribly expensive taxpayers expense.

[Brewmeister]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

JoeBob, we heard today that "Most" people will keep their plans. I'm guessing the road from "Most" to "Some" to "A Few" to "None" is not all that long. Helloooooooo single payer!

[Stosh]

Moosetracker,

 

Since you seem to be a fan of the ACA, please sell me on it. I would really like to know how this piece of legislation is going to make health insurance affordable for the anywhere from 20M to 50M folks who currently do not have health insurance.

Digital,

 

Not all the low-income use insurance and won't buy it even under ACA. They stay under the radar and work the system. It's possible, I've seen it done and from what I estimate the cost to the taxpayer for just one individual totaled up to a whopping - Boat load!

 

$200/month food stamps

$1500/month SS disability

VA pays all medical - 5 rehab sessions, 6 trips to ER and huge amounts of prescription drugs, most of which are salable on the streets, in just the past 24 months. First time he went in, the doctor was surprised he wasn't dead. Stood there and carried on a conversation with the doctor and he had a blood/alcohol level of 5.2.

 

He has it made! As taxpayer, we are paying him to be an alcoholic. Just last Friday, police, at the direction of welfare social workers, dragged him out of a hotel room and put him in ER detox. By Sunday he was back on the streets. Today's Monday. Guess what he's up to!

 

Stosh