Aetna CEO, Obamacare is in a "death spiral"

[moe]

Nice try. You just admitted you and other libs were terribly wrong. It is a failure and now you want it bailed out.

If it was so great as all you libs claimed, why does it need "fixed'?

Why do you make **** up? why? It's mostly because you have no good response for what someone says so you just invent things that you wish that they had said and then you respond to that. Of course I didn't admit that myself or anyone else is wrong so why do you say that? Did you read someone else's post and respond to mine? You seem confused and maybe Alzheimer's or dementia is setting in. You really should see a mental health professional for your mental degradation issues . Did I say I wanted something bailed out? Of course not but you say that I do for some reason. Why do you say that? Do you have reading comprehension problems? It seems so. Did I say it needs fixed? Of course not but I did say Trump will try to fix it. I say just leave it alone but that's not going to happen.

 

[op2]

You and I may have had this discussion before, but I believe it takes more faith for an atheist than someone that believes in God. Take a moment to read my post above in this thread about the creation of the universe.

It happened in one of two ways, either by accident or by design. Read about the delicate balance of the universe and the fact that if any universal constants were off just a hair, the universe could not exist or sustain life. To believe a single explosion (The Big Bang) resulted in such a finely balanced universe is virtually mathematically impossible (thus the multi universe theory). Thus, for you to believe it all happened by accident is an article of great faith.

And how about the delicate balance it took to create the God that created the Universe?

I've been down all these roads before. I don't know if I'm an atheist or an agnostic or what, but whatever, we're here, we can figure out the Universe to some degree but not to the ultimate degree, and we probably will never be able to figure it out to the ultimate degree, and if you want to say "God did it" then fine, but I'm not going there because I don't know.

By the way, the notion of a multiverse has a fair bit of credibility and if so then whatever universes exist with the parameters to support life will have life, which will then reflect on how life came about, which means the only places people can talk about how life came about are in places where life came about. The Anthropic Principle. Whatever.

 

[WVPATX]

Why do you make **** up? why? It's mostly because you have no good response for what someone says so you just invent things that you wish that they had said and then you respond to that. Of course I didn't admit that myself or anyone else is wrong so why do you say that? Did you read someone else's post and respond to mine? You seem confused and maybe Alzheimer's or dementia is setting in. You really should see a mental health professional for your mental degradation issues . Did I say I wanted something bailed out? Of course not but you say that I do for some reason. Why do you say that? Do you have reading comprehension problems? It seems so. Did I say it needs fixed? Of course not but I did say Trump will try to fix it. I say just leave it alone but that's not going to happen.

You posted this:

Did I say I wanted something bailed out? Of course not but you say that I do for some reason. Why do you say that?

Did I say it needs fixed? Of course not.

Good, then you. agree with me to leave Obamacare alone. Let it continue as is. If it is working as well as you claim, everyone will be fine. I too am in favor of leaving it alone. Don't replace it. We finally find common ground.

Where you and I differ (and where the experts at Aetna, Humana, etc. differ) is that Obamacare is in a death spiral. I agree. Let it die of its own failures. We are united in our desire to see Obamacare continue.

 

[WVPATX]

And how about the delicate balance it took to create the God that created the Universe?

I've been down all these roads before. I don't know if I'm an atheist or an agnostic or what, but whatever, we're here, we can figure out the Universe to some degree but not to the ultimate degree, and we probably will never be able to figure it out to the ultimate degree, and if you want to say "God did it" then fine, but I'm not going there because I don't know.

By the way, the notion of a multiverse has a fair bit of credibility and if so then whatever universes exist with the parameters to support life will have life, which will then reflect on how life came about, which means the only places people can talk about how life came about are in places where life came about. The Anthropic Principle. Whatever.

How do you know there was a "delicate balance" needed to create God? You have no idea nor do I. But I do know our universe is delicately balanced. Right?

My only point to you is that your potential belief in atheism requires more faith than my belief in God. Why? Because you believe this all happened by accident and again the mathematical odds are very much against that.

 

[op2]

How do you know there was a "delicate balance" needed to create God? You have no idea nor do I. But I do know our universe is delicately balanced. Right?

My only point to you is that your potential belief in atheism requires more faith than my belief in God. Why? Because you believe this all happened by accident and again the mathematical odds are very much against that.

How do you know there was a "delicate balance" needed for our Universe? By appealing to people that believe in global warming? Funny how that works.

The odds aren't at all accident it happening by accident. You nor anyone else knows what the odds are. That said, I already explained to you one scenario under which the probability of our universe being like it is is 1.

 

[WVPATX]

How do you know there was a "delicate balance" needed for our Universe? By appealing to people that believe in global warming? Funny how that works.

The odds aren't at all accident it happening by accident. You nor anyone else knows what the odds are. That said, I already explained to you one scenario under which the probability of our universe being like it is is 1.

I posted an article on the subject written by a physicist. I don't think the universe being finely balanced is in question.

One scenario with zero evidence. You stated a fair bit of credibility without any evidence? That's not credibility, that's guessing. Lots of guessing. When reading about the theories, I read lots of words like maybe, perhaps, if, possibly, potentially, etc. We can't see outside our curved universe. We have no idea what if anything is there.

Not sure what you mean with this sentence?

The odds aren't at all accident it happening by accident.

From the Smithsonian:

Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real?
Astronomers are arguing about whether they can trust this untested—and potentially untestable—idea

Null results



This uncertainty presents a problem. In science, researchers try to explain how nature works using predictions that they formally call hypotheses. Colloquially, both they and the public sometimes call these ideas “theories.” Scientists especially gravitate toward this usage when their idea deals with a wide-ranging set of circumstances or explains something fundamental to how physics operates. And what could be more wide-ranging and fundamental than the multiverse?



For an idea to technically move from hypothesis to theory, though, scientists have to test their predictions and then analyze the results to see whether their initial guess is supported or disproved by the data. If the idea gains enough consistent support and describes nature accurately and reliably, it gets promoted to an official theory.



As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe even impossible, to test. Without the ability to prove or disprove their ideas, there’s no way for scientists to know how well a theory actually represents reality. It’s like meeting a potential date on the internet: While they may look good on digital paper, you can’t know if their profile represents their actual self until you meet in person. And if you never meet in person, they could be catfishing you. And so could the multiverse.



Physicists are now debating whether that problem moves ideas like the multiverse from physics to metaphysics, from the world of science to that of philosophy.




Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ultiverse-real-180958813/#slUIBMgGdYw5tvF8.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[op2]

I posted an article on the subject written by a physicist. I don't think the universe being finely balanced is in question.

One scenario with zero evidence. You stated a fair bit of credibility without any evidence? That's not credibility, that's guessing. Lots of guessing. When reading about the theories, I read lots of words like maybe, perhaps, if, possibly, potentially, etc. We can't see outside our curved universe. We have no idea what if anything is there.

Not sure what you mean with this sentence?

The odds aren't at all accident it happening by accident.

From the Smithsonian:

Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real?
Astronomers are arguing about whether they can trust this untested—and potentially untestable—idea

Null results



This uncertainty presents a problem. In science, researchers try to explain how nature works using predictions that they formally call hypotheses. Colloquially, both they and the public sometimes call these ideas “theories.” Scientists especially gravitate toward this usage when their idea deals with a wide-ranging set of circumstances or explains something fundamental to how physics operates. And what could be more wide-ranging and fundamental than the multiverse?



For an idea to technically move from hypothesis to theory, though, scientists have to test their predictions and then analyze the results to see whether their initial guess is supported or disproved by the data. If the idea gains enough consistent support and describes nature accurately and reliably, it gets promoted to an official theory.



As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe even impossible, to test. Without the ability to prove or disprove their ideas, there’s no way for scientists to know how well a theory actually represents reality. It’s like meeting a potential date on the internet: While they may look good on digital paper, you can’t know if their profile represents their actual self until you meet in person. And if you never meet in person, they could be catfishing you. And so could the multiverse.



Physicists are now debating whether that problem moves ideas like the multiverse from physics to metaphysics, from the world of science to that of philosophy.




Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ultiverse-real-180958813/#slUIBMgGdYw5tvF8.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

This gets to the problem of using scientists as authorities and then simultaneously discarding them when you don't like what they say. So you're saying "Scientist X says Y and thus the ramifications are that the universe was created." And yet the scientists themselves don't conclude that so why should you?

That issue aside, it gets worse than that in that you say the scientists are wrong re. global warming and then come cosmology time you want to bring the scientists in for their expert opinion.

 

[WVPATX]

This gets to the problem of using scientists as authorities and then simultaneously discarding them when you don't like what they say. So you're saying "Scientist X says Y and thus the ramifications are that the universe was created." And yet the scientists themselves don't conclude that so why should you?

That issue aside, it gets worse than that in that you say the scientists are wrong re. global warming and then come cosmology time you want to bring the scientists in for their expert opinion.

You are comparing two very different scenarios. Determining man's role in global warming cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Lots of theories, but no definitive proof. Science far too new. Read the attached. Pretty fundamental and easy to understand. These 26 constants must come together for the formation of the Universe. If these constants are required for the formation of the Universe, it comes down to math and the probability of all 26 coming together in the right amount, weight, mass, etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansi...they-still-dont-give-everything/#57a51e0469a8

 

[op2]

You are comparing two very different scenarios. Determining man's role in global warming cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Lots of theories, but no definitive proof. Science far too new. Read the attached. Pretty fundamental and easy to understand. These 26 constants must come together for the formation of the Universe. If these constants are required for the formation of the Universe, it comes down to math and the probability of all 26 coming together in the right amount, weight, mass, etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansi...they-still-dont-give-everything/#57a51e0469a8

Why would you post a cosmology article from Forbes magazine?

I've read plenty about the constants and all that. But you can't just take science when you like it and dismiss it when you don't. Even global warming aside, cosmologists don't say "God did it" so implication that their work inevitably leads there must not be right.

 

[WVPATX]

Why would you post a cosmology article from Forbes magazine?

I've read plenty about the constants and all that. But you can't just take science when you like it and dismiss it when you don't. Even global warming aside, cosmologists don't say "God did it" so implication that their work inevitably leads there must not be right.

You argument is fallacious. Can scientists be wrong, of course. Can you cite any reputable scientist that can prove the degree of man's role if any in global warming? I haven't seen one. They theorize, but can't replicate because their models have all been proven wrong. The data does not support their theories. They can't replicate actual results.

On the other hand, I posted an article citing 26 constants in our universe. I am saying the mathematical odds of these constants forming in just the right way are very, very unlikely within one event. This is the entire reason for the multi-universe theory. Because cosmologists recognize the big issue with just one Big Bang, mathematically.

 

[op2]

You argument is fallacious. Can scientists be wrong, of course. Can you cite any reputable scientist that can prove the degree of man's role if any in global warming? I haven't seen one. They theorize, but can't replicate because their models have all been proven wrong. The data does not support their theories. They can't replicate actual results.

On the other hand, I posted an article citing 26 constants in our universe. I am saying the mathematical odds of these constants forming in just the right way are very, very unlikely within one event. This is the entire reason for the multi-universe theory. Because cosmologists recognize the big issue with just one Big Bang, mathematically.

You're picking and choosing the science you like.

And that's not the reason for the multiverse theory. The fact that in experiments with very small particles and two possible outcomes seem to result in both outcomes happening is what leads, eventually, to the multiverse theory. It's not "We can't explain one universe but we can multiple, therefore let's go with multiple."

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[WVPATX]

You're picking and choosing the science you like.

And that's not the reason for the multiverse theory. The fact that in experiments with very small particles and two possible outcomes seem to result in both outcomes happening is what leads, eventually, to the multiverse theory. It's not "We can't explain one universe but we can multiple, therefore let's go with multiple."

No, this gives you the story.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

And are as a previously posted, scientists acknowledge there is never going to be anyway to prove this theory.