Universal health care in a universe created by God

[FlashDangerpants]

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

Read the text carefully.

Well, that settles it. IC has a valid point. We really don't know the moon isn't made of green cheese. Did the Apollo program really land a human being on the moon, or was it all faked? Get your tinfoil hats. I'm going to build a cabin in the mountains and wait for the new dark age to be over.

If you want him to be aware that you aren't being truly serious, remember to include one of these things
He needs cues otherwise he doesn't know there's subtext.

[Immanuel Can]

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

Read the text carefully.

Well, that settles it.

Well, Gary...how do you tell when an interpretation is a better or worse reflection of a text?

We all do it the same way: read the text, and compare what you find with what the claimed "interpreter" is telling you it says.

[Will Bouwman]

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text...

Of the interpretations that "reflect the text", how do you decide their plausibility?

Read the text carefully.

I see. No Catholic has ever read the Bible more carefully than you.






Oh wait
No Catholic has ever read the Bible more carefully than you.

[Will Bouwman]

...how do you tell when an interpretation is a better or worse reflection of a text?

We all do it the same way: read the text, and compare what you find with what the claimed "interpreter" is telling you it says.

That's right. Anyone who agrees with your interpretation of the text has interpreted it correctly. There is no circularity in that argument

[Immanuel Can]

...how do you tell when an interpretation is a better or worse reflection of a text?

We all do it the same way: read the text, and compare what you find with what the claimed "interpreter" is telling you it says.

That's right. Anyone who agrees with your interpretation of the text has interpreted it correctly. There is no circularity in that argument

Well, actually, only people who can read well can interpret well. And not everybody does. Moreover, there's a thing called "hermeneutics" in reading, and you have to pick the appropriate hermeneutic for the text you are reading. And that requires you to decide, on the basis of your own reading, exactly what the text is.

[Will Bouwman]

...there's a thing called "hermeneutics" in reading, and you have to pick the appropriate hermeneutic for the text you are reading. And that requires you to decide, on the basis of your own reading, exactly what the text is.

Well, how is "your own reading" decided?

Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

...there's a thing called "hermeneutics" in reading, and you have to pick the appropriate hermeneutic for the text you are reading. And that requires you to decide, on the basis of your own reading, exactly what the text is.

Well, how is "your own reading" decided?

It's done the same way all good reading is done: in a way sensitive to genre and context, carefully, with attention to the meaning of words, using logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications, and with humility. These "epistemic virtues," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/ as they are called, are applicable to more than philosophy; they are a requirement of all honest understanding of language.

Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

Repeating that won't help it be true, you know.

Actually, it's manifestly right...unless you believe universalizing healthcare comes free. And that's not remotely reasonable. So it's your case to make, if you think money can appear to cover the costs, or if you think you can explain how these people can be served without cost.

[MikeNovack]

Actually, it's manifestly right...unless you believe universalizing healthcare comes free. And that's not remotely reasonable. So it's your case to make, if you think money can appear to cover the costs, or if you think you can explain how these people can be served without cost.

Correct, health care is not free. We are all paying for health care NOW.

So the right way to discuss the topic of "how much would universal health care cost society" is NOT in a vacuum. It is in the context of what society is paying NOW (without universal health care) and how much health care are we getting for that amount vs how much universal health care would cost and how much health care for that.

You are making a BIG assumption, IC, that universal heath care would cost more. With our current system, "competing insurers", multiple payers etc. a surprisingly high percentage of the total cost is eaten up by measures to prevent adverse selection, multiple claim submission, etc. Costs that do not provide health care and which become minimal with universal/single payer systems.

PRESENT DATA. Do not assume that "providing health care for X number of people" under current non-universal system means "providing health care for more than X people " under a universal/single payer system would "obviously" cost more. If the "wastage costs" of the non-universal system are greater than the cost of providing care to the additional people to make it all then N=not more expensive.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, it's manifestly right...unless you believe universalizing healthcare comes free. And that's not remotely reasonable. So it's your case to make, if you think money can appear to cover the costs, or if you think you can explain how these people can be served without cost.

Correct, health care is not free. We are all paying for health care NOW.

But all of the street, people, the druggies, the mentally-ill, and the economic migrants are being covered, you think? And you don't believe the 60% of your own countrypeople who say that they are, themselves, not yet being adequately covered by the NHS? And yet, making healthcare genuinely universal and free will not cost more?

Nobody believes you.

I don't think even you believe you.

[Immanuel Can]

Pseudo-Socialism in places like NY and Cali.

Realism elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FawycgB0FDE

[MikeNovack]

And you don't believe the 60% of your own countrypeople who say that they are, themselves, not yet being adequately covered by the NHS? And yet, making healthcare genuinely universal and free will not cost more?

MY countrymen have no NHS (or any other "single payer system")

Maybe that's why you are confused, have reading comprehension difficulties?

[Radagast]

Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text, and some depart from it. So "they will claim" holds no water.

Like my old schoolteacher used to say: "You worship God in your way, and I'll worship him in his."

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe that's why you are confused, have reading comprehension difficulties?

Maybe it was the accent with which you type that threw me off.

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone calling themselves a Christian will claim their right to do so is based on their interpretation of the Bible

Not all interpretations are equal, of course. Some are plausible, and some are not. Some reflect the text, and some depart from it. So "they will claim" holds no water.

Like my old schoolteacher used to say: "You worship God in your way, and I'll worship him in his."

Funny. Yes, that's the idea. The point is not to read your own views into the text, but to take out what is actually there...the intentions of the Writer.

[Will Bouwman]

...there's a thing called "hermeneutics" in reading, and you have to pick the appropriate hermeneutic for the text you are reading. And that requires you to decide, on the basis of your own reading, exactly what the text is.

Well, how is "your own reading" decided?

It's done the same way all good reading is done: in a way sensitive to genre and context, carefully, with attention to the meaning of words, using logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications, and with humility. These "epistemic virtues"...

Well, if you had applied them, you would understand the question is how do you decide what to read? What makes you, Mr Can, pick up a book in the first place?

Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

Repeating that won't help it be true, you know.

Here's something for you to read in a way sensitive to genre and context, carefully, with attention to the meaning of words, using logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications, and with humility:

In western democracies, rough sleepers make up a tiny fraction of the total population, typically less than 0.1%. The OECD estimates total overall homelessness (which includes temporary shelters and "hidden" homelessness) at roughly 0.25% of the population, with rough sleeping accounting for a small minority of those figures.
Because definitions and data-collection methods vary significantly, exact percentages must be viewed as estimates rather than precise figures. Concrete examples and data across western democracies include:
United Kingdom: In England, the 2025 autumn single-night snapshot estimated that there were 8.2 rough sleepers per 100,000 people (roughly 0.0082% of the population). Broad homelessness figures are higher, with about one in 200 households living in temporary accommodation.
United States: The Department of Housing and Urban Development tracks these numbers heavily, generally splitting the homeless population between sheltered and unsheltered individuals. The unsheltered rate typically represents less than half of the country's total homeless population, which translates to roughly 0.05% to 0.08% of the general public depending on the year's point-in-time counts.

The numbers are so small that, even if no homeless person had access to healthcare, which in most cases they do, and every single homeless person were among those that you see

on the streets every day, in encampments, bent over with addiction, yelling madly on street corners

their addition would cause an explosion of the order of that if you had dynamite for brains, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.