Health Care Upheld - Welcome to Socialism

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

Wait... Communism AND the Third Reich?

It's the Comminazis! Somebody call McBain!

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
ok I think I get the point. If the dog chews on it's food bowl and you take the bowl away it's negative reinforcement. If you smack it on the nose it's positive. Positive because giving the dog anything (even a smack on the nose) is positive and taking away is negative.

First of all: "reinforcement" and "punishment" are determined after the fact, ie, after measurable effects on behavior occur. Strictly speaking, we won't know what a consequence will be until we first see what it does to the behavior.

Reinforcement - in either positive or negative form - always increases the frequency of a target behavior. Positive reinforcement is adding something which increases frequency; negative reinforcement is removing something which increases frequency.

Punishment - either positive or negative - always decreases the frequency of a behavior. Positive punishment adds something which decreases frequency; negative punishment removes something which decreases frequency.

Accordingly: smacking Fido on the nose when he chews his food bowl can be considered a positive punishment IF this consequence of addition actually decreases Fido's bowl-chewing behavior. Chew -> Smack -> Less chewing.

Taking his bowl away: it can be considered a negative punishment IF Fido chews less on the bowl. Chew -> Bowl away -> Less chewing when bowl is returned (obviously if the bowl isn't returned, we can't determine any behavioral change).

That said: for the most part, I'm glad Obamacare was held as constitutional. I would not mind a higher co-payment if this means those less fortunate than I can now have medical insurance. Plus, it also means my daughter can now stay under my plan until she's 26. That's piece of mind for me, my wife, and my child.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
If thats the case couldn't it be argued that I am trying to get my dog to poop outside as opposed to on the couch?

not if you are hitting it for pooping on the couch.

This is actually why punishment is much less effective than reward, as the dog will generally only learn "don't poop on X", and might not generalize to other furniture, but, if you reward it for pooping outside, it will only want to do that.

Originally posted by Mindship
"reinforcement" and "punishment" are determined after the fact, ie, after measurable effects on behavior occur. Strictly speaking, we won't know what a consequence will be until we first see what it does to the behavior.

I get where you are coming from, I'm not so sure I agree, though. I think you might be talking more about the efficacy of tying the unconditioned stimuli and unconditioned response.

Something like food is a biological reinforcer. If an organism didn't increase a behaviour in response to a food reward, we would consider this to be an abnormal organism, not a fault in the use of food as an reinforcer.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

So, tell me.

Have you ever even glanced in the direction of a history book at any point in your life?

Oh my God.

If "this" is communist, some of you would literraly shit their pants off in Canada.

This is a social measure, sure, but what's the problem? How much of a heartless mother****er can you be to oppose this law?
My wish for you now is that you can experience a free healthcare system.

Originally posted by inimalist
I get where you are coming from, I'm not so sure I agree, though. I think you might be talking more about the efficacy of tying the unconditioned stimuli and unconditioned response.

Something like food is a biological reinforcer. If an organism didn't increase a behaviour in response to a food reward, we would consider this to be an abnormal organism, not a fault in the use of food as an reinforcer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/health-care-ruling-may-secure-obamas-place-in-history.html

In political terms, said Douglas G. Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University, “It’s the cornerstone of what could turn out to be one of the most extraordinary two-term presidencies in American history.”

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know if it is really an improvement at all. I wanted a system that was similar to France's. Obviously we'd have to cut the military budget in half and raise taxes to do that...but it would be an actual "major" improvement over the system we have now.

Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?

Don't France pay a lot less per capita on health care than you do?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?

Why would you not? Obsiously, a country like the USA probably needs more investing than any other country on Earth, but My God, look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Well, I'm all for the US cutting some military expenditure. I just think you might not have to cut it that dramatically, if at all, to swing a universal health care.

Is there a reason why per capita spending has to be much more in the US? (overall spending, fair enough)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'm all for the US cutting some military expenditure. I just think you might not have to cut it that dramatically, if at all, to swing a universal health care.

cheers

@mindship
@inimalist

I think I get what you are saying...or at least it's clicking better then before!

It's an interesting concept.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?

To pay for the level of service they have, it would cost tons and tons of money that we are currently not spending. Even cutting the military budget in half would not shore up the difference. If we want to provide France's level of medical service, we'd have to also increase taxes.

We have more people, higher base medical costs, and a higher standard of living. That all equates to higher costs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't France pay a lot less per capita on health care than you do?

The last I checked it was a bit over $1000 more, per person. But what we pay out of pocket, per person, is not equating to as high of service as France's despite us paying more (but I did outline areas for which we have more costs). This is my major beef with the American medical system.

Yeah, part of the system in the countries that have better health coverage is the setting of price controls in some form or another.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
@mindship
@inimalist

I think I get what you are saying...or at least it's clicking better then before!

cool 🙂

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
It's an interesting concept.

to be fair, I loathe classical learning theory

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Why would you not? Obsiously, a country like the USA probably needs more investing than any other country on Earth, but My God, look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

canada spends more on its military than turkey?

diminishing returns much?

But less of our GDP.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But less of our GDP.

its got to be all the money we sink into failed projects...

The CF’s major procurements are in large measure in a very parlous state with endless delays; blame must be shared amongst the services, the bureaucrats and the politicians–though I suspect the primary blame devolves onto those in uniform. Examples:

-F-35
-Trucks
-Close Combat Vehicles
-Fixed-Wing SAR Aircraft
-New Maritime Helicopter
-Joint Support Ship
[- Arctic Patrol Ship]

And heaven only knows when the RCN will ever get the new Canadian Surface Combatants to replace destroyers and frigates (note the latter’s modernization may well be delayed); keep in mind the CSCs are to be built by Irving–still needing subsidies–after they’re finished with the A/OPS. Good blinking luck on the timing. Of course it’s another question whether we truly need such a blue water fleet.

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1094

Originally posted by dadudemon
To pay for the level of service they have, it would cost tons and tons of money that we are currently not spending. Even cutting the military budget in half would not shore up the difference. If we want to provide France's level of medical service, we'd have to also increase taxes.

We have more people, higher base medical costs, and a higher standard of living. That all equates to higher costs.

But you would be eliminating a lot of the cost of health care you have right now. Both pharma industries and doctors would be taking a (well deserved) cut.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The last I checked it was a bit over $1000 more, per person. But what we pay out of pocket, per person, is not equating to as high of service as France's despite us paying more (but I did outline areas for which we have more costs). This is my major beef with the American medical system.

If this is to be believe in 2009 it's $4000. To put that in perspective it is more than DOUBLE what France pays (by total expenditure of GDP it is 47% more.

The data seems to be from 2009, but as far as I know health care cost hasn't decreased under Obama, at least not significantly.

It seems to me that if you were to implement a Health Care system on par with Germany, England or France you would most likely actually save money. At any rate I don't see any reason why cost would increase by half the military spending.

You'd have to reroute the current private spending into taxation of course, the money has to come from somewhere.

Originally posted by inimalist
canada spends more on its military than turkey?

diminishing returns much?

Gotta keep Ontario contained.

Canada is several times the size of Turkey, as well.