Then how do you fix it? It's ok, I can wait til you're sober...
HOFer
Then how do you fix it? It's ok, I can wait til you're sober...
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
OK, better now.Originally Posted by MJZiggy
I break ranks to a certain degree on this issue too. What I think should happen actually flies in the face of a true far Right/Libertarian. I have some personal history in the healthcare system, so I can empathize with the costs, and how quickly they could financially devastate someone.
1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.
2. Those people who don’t have health insurance would then be looked at. The people who CHOOSE not to get insurance would now be exposed. No more trips to Vegas, Packer tickets, etc. instead of paying for health insurance. I think at least half of these “uninsured" we always hear about can afford to pay for insurance, but choose not to.
3. Those people who don’t have insurance AND have been determined that they really can’t afford it, would be helped. They would be given a “voucher” from the Fed. Gov’t and told to go buy insurance coverage. But they have to have coverage. This will get these people out of Emergency Rooms. That is where they now get their primary care. Bogs the system down. Get them in the system.
Overall though, I think HSAs and high deductible policies are a very good idea.
The bottom line is we have a cluster fuck right now. There is no denying that. The reason for this problem is that there are no consumer driven choices in healthcare. Things are paid for by a third party, nobody really cares about costs. ANYTHING that makes healthcare a more market driven industry will start fixing problems. The other option, Government taking over, is not the answer.
A true Conservative would never agree with any Government involvement. I am more of a realist. Unless we are ready to have uninsured people dying on the streets, we have to do something. We do it now anyway, but just really inefficiently.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
HOFer
I pretty much agree with everything you said, but I have a question. If we're going to require people to have health insurance, how do we track them? We can't even seem to track who's in the country much less whether they have coverage, and what's the penalty if they don't? And how do we enforce it?
It's the same idea as they had when talking about retirement benefits. People know they should save for retirement; know they should be socking money away to live on later--but too many just don't do it. People should buy health insurance, but too many just don't. I know that at my current salary, if I had to buy my health insurance, I would not be able to make it financially.
And just for the record, as it sounds like some are talking about different degrees of government involvement here, what I'm trying to discuss is not having the government run the healthcare system to the degree of controlling hospitals and doctors. I'm speaking specifically to health coverage and making sure that people have access to primary care without screwing up emergency departments and going bankrupt to do it.
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
Thats not entirely true...a fanatical libertarian might be against any gov't invovlement, but most libertarians/conservatives actually understand gov't has a role. I openly said we need a disaster policy industry that is regulated somewhat heavily.OK, better now.
I break ranks to a certain degree on this issue too. What I think should happen actually flies in the face of a true far Right/Libertarian. I have some personal history in the healthcare system, so I can empathize with the costs, and how quickly they could financially devastate someone.
1. I think everyone, by law, has to have some kind of healthcare insurance. Just like auto insurance.
2. Those people who don’t have health insurance would then be looked at. The people who CHOOSE not to get insurance would now be exposed. No more trips to Vegas, Packer tickets, etc. instead of paying for health insurance. I think at least half of these “uninsured" we always hear about can afford to pay for insurance, but choose not to.
3. Those people who don’t have insurance AND have been determined that they really can’t afford it, would be helped. They would be given a “voucher” from the Fed. Gov’t and told to go buy insurance coverage. But they have to have coverage. This will get these people out of Emergency Rooms. That is where they now get their primary care. Bogs the system down. Get them in the system.
Overall though, I think HSAs and high deductible policies are a very good idea.
The bottom line is we have a cluster fuck right now. There is no denying that. The reason for this problem is that there are no consumer driven choices in healthcare. Things are paid for by a third party, nobody really cares about costs. ANYTHING that makes healthcare a more market driven industry will start fixing problems. The other option, Government taking over, is not the answer.
A true Conservative would never agree with any Government involvement. I am more of a realist. Unless we are ready to have uninsured people dying on the streets, we have to do something. We do it now anyway, but just really inefficiently.
The reason I am so in favor of HSA's is because I think people get to make BETTER less expensive choices when they are paying. I would like to see a very competitive medical industry in which all people have a disastor policy and an HSA. Competitive being the key, we are in the mess of today due to ted kennedy's medalling since 1967 and slowly eroding any semblence of common sense from the healthcare market.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
I won't pretend to have the solution. I surely don't. But I will support radically government mandated change, because the current system sucks. Though I would prefer to wait until after Harlan passes.
Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.
I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
WHY would you make such a claim? The only only only reason why people CHOOSING to be uninsured would cause any movement at all toward nationalized health care is the bogus propaganda being pushed by leftists which you guys seem to be buying into hook, line, and sinker.Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.
WHY would you three obviously good conservatives (BHead, Howard, and Scott) see our current system as so flawed? We have the indisputably best quality of care in the world; We have CHOICE/FREEDOM--something which you guys in most contexts rever, but which you seem willing to throw in the trash here; And we have virtually everybody getting virtually every form of treatment they need.
Somebody spoke of inefficiency in the way the poor and uninsured are given care? That is miniscule in comparison to the horrendous inefficiency of what Obama and Hillary advocate/what Canada and other countries already have.
Having the system absorb the cost of treating the poverty cases--as is currently done--is somehow a form of SOCIALISM? How so? It is no different than when a store passes on the cost of shoplifting to other purchasers. Is THAT socialism?
The other way many low income/uninsured get treatment is through medical research programs. THAT is the answer to the liberal complaint that some poor fall through the cracks in non-life threatening situations.
So we have virtually everybody getting treated, we have as much choice and freedom as we could realistically hope for, and we have the best quality of care in the world. But something is WRONG with the system? I don't think so.
It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.
I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.
Where should the unisured go for their primary care?
But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?
Hey Texas...have you ever received medical care in another country other than at a US base? Have you experienced how the system works in Canada and Germany first hand?
C.H.U.D.
WHY would you make such a claim? The only only only reason why people CHOOSING to be uninsured would cause any movement at all toward nationalized health care is the bogus propaganda being pushed by leftists which you guys seem to be buying into hook, line, and sinker.Tex, in the climate we live, if people aren't insured, even thru their own stupidity, we are gonna end up with nationalized health care. So....the solution is, do we let that happen or look for a common sense solution. We have lost the war on letting people make their own stupid mistakes on this one, we have to focus on a battle of not nationalizing the entire industry now.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
Furthermore, thanks to libs, medicare, and HMO's the industry has been damaged so we actually have to find a cure for what ills it at the moment. If the choice is leave it, nationalize it or fix it, I choose fix it.
WHY would you three obviously good conservatives (BHead, Howard, and Scott) see our current system as so flawed? We have the indisputably best quality of care in the world; We have CHOICE/FREEDOM--something which you guys in most contexts rever, but which you seem willing to throw in the trash here; And we have virtually everybody getting virtually every form of treatment they need.
Somebody spoke of inefficiency in the way the poor and uninsured are given care? That is miniscule in comparison to the horrendous inefficiency of what Obama and Hillary advocate/what Canada and other countries already have.
Having the system absorb the cost of treating the poverty cases--as is currently done--is somehow a form of SOCIALISM? How so? It is no different than when a store passes on the cost of shoplifting to other purchasers. Is THAT socialism?
The other way many low income/uninsured get treatment is through medical research programs. THAT is the answer to the liberal complaint that some poor fall through the cracks in non-life threatening situations.
So we have virtually everybody getting treated, we have as much choice and freedom as we could realistically hope for, and we have the best quality of care in the world. But something is WRONG with the system? I don't think so.
Just curious, what part of Tex are you suggesting needs to be examined?
There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.
I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.
Where should the unisured go for their primary care?
But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?
I don't believe proacts is a word.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
You were talking about CURRENT SITUATION...in the usage of the ER.There would no longer be any uninsured. They would go to a pediatrician for their ear problems. During regular hours.It isn't just the uninsurered that use the ER wrongly.You actually sound as though you agree with my ideas. The problem with the "system obsorbing" these costs (by the way, you are advocating Socialism there), is that it is done so ineffeciently. I am not kidding when I tell you that the uninsured kids in my town go to the E.R. whenever they want for primary care issues. The E.R. is NOT an efficient way to obsorb costs. I just got a bill, $770 from the pharmacy.....the only thing my kid received was a an I.V. w/fluids (i.e. water). I am paying for everyone else in line that night too.I don't believe what I'm reading. You guys, presumably as conservatives, causally condone--no make that advocate--the damn government REQUIRING people to have health insurance? They can take away my right to drive if I don't have car insurance; What are they gonna do, take away my right to live if I don't have health insurance?
Auto insurance requirements are kind of a joke. Making someone carry $25K in liability coverage really is inadequate.
If you're going to do it right, make it high deductables, with solid catastrophic coverage.
The great majority of those NOT having health insurance are in that situation BY CHOICE--they just don't consider it a very good way to spend their hard earned money--THEIR hard earned money.
I break ranks very slightly with conservatives/libertarians on this also in that a small degree of government help to the poor--in this area and others--isn't all that horrendous. But allowing YET ANOTHER huge government intrusion into our lives like forcing people to have coverage? Hell No!
My primary position here is that none of this--no formal or official government mandated policy is needed, because virtually nobody (Harlan's wrongheaded response on the previous page notwithstanding) fails to get needed care. The system absorbs the cost and/or passes it on to other users, and THAT is a helluva lot better than either the extreme of forcing poor people to do without or forcing everybody to do what some damn elitists think they ought to do.
The bottom line for your hard line is that you are willing to watch/smell uninsured cancer patients dying in the streets. Maybe I am not being ultruistic, maybe I would find it offensive to have to put up with the smell of dying people as I go about my business. It would ruin a good evening out.
I agree with you that we should not have to mandate anything. If people are too stupid to not take care of their health planning, they should have that right. But they also MUST suffer the consequences, and our society is not willing to live in some kind of Dickensonian environment.
Where should the unisured go for their primary care?
But, what do you expect from a culture that reacts instead of proacts?
I don't believe proacts is a word.
So, i ask, again...where should uninsured go for primary care?
Proact: Of course it isn't a word. What is your point. You understood what i was getting at....like the old joke...progress/congress.
Some problem-solving techniques
There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.
Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.
1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.
2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.
3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.
4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)
5. Brainstorming
6. Morphological analysis
7. Method of focal objects
8. Lateral thinking
9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)
10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?
11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.
12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?
13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else
14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem
15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it
16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)
17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.
18. Root Cause Analysis
19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)
20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)
21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)
22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)
23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)
24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)
25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)
26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
Ah, the blame otown defense. When asked a legitimate question and you have no answer...blame the questioner.Some problem-solving techniques
There are many approaches to problem solving, depending on the nature of the problem and the people involved in the problem. The more traditional, rational approach is typically used and involves, eg, clarifying description of the problem, analyzing causes, identifying alternatives, assessing each alternative, choosing one, implementing it, and evaluating whether the problem was solved or not.
Another, more state-of-the-art approach is appreciative inquiry. That approach asserts that "problems" are often the result of our own perspectives on a phenomena, eg, if we look at it as a "problem," then it will become one and we'll probably get very stuck on the "problem." Appreciative inquiry includes identification of our best times about the situation in the past, wishing and thinking about what worked best then, visioning what we want in the future, and building from our strengths to work toward our vision.
1. divide and conquer: break down a large, complex problem into smaller, solvable problems.
2. Hill-climbing strategy, (or - rephrased - gradient descent/ascent, difference reduction) - attempting at every step to move closer to the goal situation. The problem with this approach is that many challenges require that you seem to move away from the goal state in order to clearly see the solution.
3. Means-end analysis, more effective than hill-climbing, requires the setting of subgoals based on the process of getting from the initial state to the goal state when solving a problem.
4. Trial-and-error (also called guess and check)
5. Brainstorming
6. Morphological analysis
7. Method of focal objects
8. Lateral thinking
9. Research: study what others have written about the problem (and related problems). Maybe there's already a solution?
Assumption reversal (write down your assumptions about the problem, and then reverse them all)
10. Analogy: has a similar problem (possibly in a different field) been solved before?
11. Hypothesis testing: assuming a possible explanation to the problem and trying to prove the assumption.
12. Constraint examination: are you assuming a constraint which doesn't really exist?
13. Incubation: input the details of a problem into your mind, then stop focusing on it. The subconscious mind will continue to work on the problem, and the solution might just "pop up" while you are doing something else
14. Build (or write) one or more abstract models of the problem
15. Try to prove that the problem cannot be solved. Where the proof breaks down can be your starting point for resolving it
16. Get help from friends or online problem solving community (e.g. 3form, InnoCentive)
17. delegation: delegating the problem to others.
18. Root Cause Analysis
19. Working Backwards (Halpern,2002)
20. Forward-Looking Strategy (Halpern, 2002)
21. Simplification (Halpern, 2002)
22. Generalization (Halpern, 2002)
23. Specialization (Halpern, 2002)
24. Random Search (Halpern, 2002)
25. Split-Half Method (Halpern,2002)
26. Restate problem, and blame Conservatives (Otown, 2008)
Terrific.
So, i guess you are concluding that the uninsured use the ER as their primary care facility...and this is what Tex talks about when he says everyone can get care in this country.
What's your question?
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
Did Texas do the cover for New Yorker this month?
C.H.U.D.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote