Interesting Video about Opposites and Assumptions

[Chief Pride]

http://www.wimp.com/japaneseaddresses/

[DonRotolo]

Knew that about Japanese addresses (used to work for a Japanese company), but a pretty cool explanation regardless. Interesting idea with the Chinese doctors...

[Molten]

Note to self: Don't go to Japan. I already get lost easily enough with our setup. I really don't think I could re-adjust to a different one.

[Rick TYler]

Two comments:

1. The map is "true" as long as you still accept the Mercator projection and northern hemispherical predominance. Take a look at this Website and watch the video: http://www.petermoor.nl/overig/worldmap/. I don't know about you, but it hurts my brain.

2. Just because it's different, doesn't mean all differences work equally well. The US Navy used to name aircraft like this: F6F, which meant the sixth fighter design (the first "F") from Grumman (manufacturer code "F"). If the same airplane was manufactured by a different company, it would have a different designator. The torpedo plan TBF (first torpedo bomber design from Grumman) was called a TBM if it was made by General Motors.

The Army Air Corps (now the US Air Force) was -- some Naval aviators say -- confused by this nomenclature and developed the simpler system of just numbering planes by type. The B-17 was the 17th bomber design considered by the Air Corps, and the P-38 was the 38th "pursuit" plane (fighter). To the Air Force, information about manufacturer did not need to be embedded in the type label.*

The Air Force and the Navy each had a system that made sense to them. It did not, however, make sense to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who famously talked about the F4H and the Air Force F-110 as if they were different aircraft, not realizing that they were just the Navy and Air Force labels for the same airplane. After embarrassing himself, McNamara ordered all the services to use the same nomenclature. Faced with the insurmountable problem of teaching Air Force types something new, the Navy and Marines adopted the Air Force system.

As much as I like making fun of the Air Force, their system of using an arbitrary label to identify a physical object was simpler than using one that embedded information in the label itself. It also made it easier for a casual user of the information (to which category I would not normally assign the SecDef, but that's a different issue) to understand what is being discussed. This principal, of not embedding too much information directly in a label, is good practice in relational database design, too, but that's a different mini-essay.

* If you have noticed missing numbers in the series, such as there being no "B-16," there are always planes developed in very low numbers for evaluations and/or testing. The F-17, for example, was the competitor to the F-16 during evaluations and testing. When the Air Force went with the F-16 (Air Force fighter pilots not understanding how to turn on the second engine) the Navy took the design and it evolved into the F-18.

[Rick TYler]

Also, if the description of Chinese medicine was accurate, there is an easy way for doctors to "win" the game. Whenever someone is too sick, just abandon the patient and focus on those who are fundamentally well. You would make more money by dealing with patients who get sniffles and sprained fingers than by dealing with chronic problems such as diabetes, hypertension, Parkinson's, etc.

If you think this through, it would the dream of managed health care -- provide services for trivial health problems and cut off those with expensive conditions. Why provide a $50,000 (and I'm making up that number) pacemaker for a retired 68-year-old school teacher when the person receiving it is unlikely to generate enough revenue to ever pay for it? This calculation is carried out no matter who is doing the paying -- a Chinese doctor, an insurance company, or public health care. Unless they are forced to provide service by a contract (insurance company) or the law, why would a health care provider continue to work at a loss?

I prefer Western medicine. If I'm really sick, I would prefer a doctor who thinks that if they could just make me well they could then take that ski trip their family wants.

[JesseK]

Got a 'video not found' ....

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Also, if the description of Chinese medicine was accurate, there is an easy way for doctors to "win" the game. Whenever someone is too sick, just abandon the patient and focus on those who are fundamentally well. You would make more money by dealing with patients who get sniffles and sprained fingers than by dealing with chronic problems such as diabetes, hypertension, Parkinson's, etc.

If you think this through, it would the dream of managed health care -- provide services for trivial health problems and cut off those with expensive conditions. Why provide a $50,000 (and I'm making up that number) pacemaker for a retired 68-year-old school teacher when the person receiving it is unlikely to generate enough revenue to ever pay for it? This calculation is carried out no matter who is doing the paying -- a Chinese doctor, an insurance company, or public health care. Unless they are forced to provide service by a contract (insurance company) or the law, why would a health care provider continue to work at a loss?

I prefer Western medicine. If I'm really sick, I would prefer a doctor who thinks that if they could just make me well they could then take that ski trip their family wants.

There's a flawed assumption here that China's health care and the U.S's health care are grossly different.

Western Medicine is based on the idea that everyone will need the expensive procedures at some point, so we all pay into insurance and thus pay for whoever needs it now. Car, Home, and Life Insurance all work the exact same way. Fundamentally, this is a good idea since it is impossible to tell who will need what procedures that cost how much. Also fundamentally this is socialism, yet it's the only way to guarantee everyone will be covered when they hit points in their lives that they'll require a doctor (etc). Doctors are willing to provide any necessary service because of this system. An alternative is to have everyone save up for their own health care costs much like they would save for retirement...yet doing so pushes all the work and risk of doing so onto consumers and doctors would have to run credit checks before doing anything. That's a good thing until you consider all of the scams, mis-advertisements, misconceptions that happen in the free market, etc .... plus in an emergency who has the time to research the best or cheapest options?

Since an insurance company assumes the risk that it may have to pay out more than it takes in, it adds line items to policies that enables it to deny procedures. Greed ensues when it realizes that denying X% of all claims or dropping the top N most expensive patients will turn a grossly high profit that's good for shareholders. That's exactly how Aetna's (I think...) then-CEO turned the company around in 2000-2002. I can't say this is sheerly wrong, because making profits isn't a crime nor is it unethical. It's just disconcerting to know that we're all line items whose sole purpose is to please shareholders in the end. So rather than the doctor saying "No" to the patient, the doctors push that responsibility onto the insurance providers so they can focus on giving medical care.

In China, the shareholders are the 'Greater Republic of China' rather than a stock market. Thus in principle, the U.S. and China have fundamentally similar systems. The key difference is that in the U.S., those who have more money are more able to convince the insurance companies to say 'yes' to expensive or risky procedures by purchasing better insurance coverage. So saying you prefer "Western Medicine" simply means you're willing to pay more even though you may never need it ... which is great for shareholders.

[Chris is me]

I prefer Western medicine. If I'm really sick, I would prefer a doctor who thinks that if they could just make me well they could then take that ski trip their family wants.

Trade severity of condition for amount of insurance and you'll get largely the same story here. Doctors are highly encouraged to "over-treat" those with good plans to pay for the few uninsured they can take in off-book. Some will make more money doing so. Fun, huh.

Generally why I don't think medicine is a good industry to run for-profit, unlike most every other.

Originally Posted by JesseK

I can't say this is sheerly wrong, because making profits isn't a crime nor is it unethical.

Making profits at the expense of human life is a bit shadier than that.

That map thing made my head spin. I've always disliked the Mercator Projection but was really thrown off by the whole thing.

Never knew that about Japan addresses despite living there for a few weeks. ?_?