dawei

You're leaving out part of the straw dog story... why were they burnt ? You're neglecting to show how their 'existence' ends in burning.

You can report a comment for moderator review but I will say that there is rarely action unless it breaks the rules or trolling like.

Hendricks does give the following in his book, but still holds that it is more about an ancient character of cloud. My guess is because of the consistency of other ancient versions to do so.

Nice stuff and willing to discuss but need to resolve this first. Where is 熉 coming from? I don't see that in any of my research but willing to look again when given some direction. I did not find that in any ancient version and I provided five in my post.

one things for sure, this has lots of variation based on the version. Here is what I came up with: 天道雲雲各复其堇（槿）= Goudian 天物雲雲各復歸其根，= Beida 天物雲雲各復歸於其根 = Mawangdui 夫物芸芸各復歸其根 = Heshang Gong & Wang Bi This 芸 only shows up starting with HSG and WB (at least above). The three oldest seem to agree on 雲/云. Hendricks seems to agree as his modern equivalent is 云 in his Guodian and MWD. But I will say that Nina comes up with 員/员 as 'round' which would require them to be read as 圓/圆 (round). See her take: http://www.daoisopen.com/A11toA13Chapters25516.html I'm only surprised that everyone talks of loans, phonetics, exchanging characters but none want to stick with the original 雲雲/云云 and just point out that it means 'every-thing'. As part of searching around, I found that one of the oldest cosmology, Heng Xian, which was also on Bamboo dates to around 300 BC, so close in time to the Guodian Laozi and it also uses the double characters. Every translation of that cosmology also translate to mean 'every-thing'. Then I'm doubly bothered that later versions (after the Guodian) want to also change out the first two characters. While Hendricks takes some effort to explain why, I don't buy it; both characters should be read as different characters just because they can't get their head around the grammatical challenges of Chu script on bamboo. I don't see why it has to completely sync up with a modern understanding of chinese character usage. In the end, no matter what character combinations are used, everyone gets to the same meaning... but I'm with Dust here, I prefer the Guodian version.

Summary, based on comments: 1. So empty your mind and fill your belly. You will be physically content and without worry. 2. Lao would fill bellies, and provide light handed guidance ,,this satiation being enough to let them be naturally good. 3. Drop desires and simply live you life (fill your belly). 4. Drop desires and simply live you life 5. More like treat everyone fair and equally at a society level. If you make some people more important than others, people become jealous. If you set up a class structure, people will get caught up in it and there will never be peace. It is more stating that "When action is pure and selfless everything settles into its own perfect place" and that a sage can help teach and lead by example. I feel there was a valid criticism of the normal interpretation that was: What good is it to really dumb down the populous ? Is it just for an orderly mass of inept folks who are too stupid to know what to act on or how to act?

Guodian: - Tr. Hendricks 知之者弗言， Those who understand it say nothing about it; 言之者弗知 those who talk about it do not understand it. MWA & B: Tr. Hendricks 知者弗言 Those who know don't talk about it; ﹦者弗知 those who talk don't know it HSG & Wang Bi: Tr. Flowing Hands 知者不言， Those who are enlightened, sit in silence. 言者不知 Those who think they know something, are forever talking. HSG notes: Those who know, value action rather than speech. A team of four horses cannot overtake the tongue. More words mean more sorrow. Lok Sang Ho notes: Literally, “Those who are wise do not speak; those who speak are not wise.” The word “much” is added in each of these clauses to revive Laozi’s obvious true meaning. Derek Lin notes: The truly wise understand the Tao, so they know that actions speak louder than words. Rather than to talk endlessly about what they should do or how they should be, they put their time and effort into the actual doing and being. On the other hand, those who prattle on and on only demonstrate that they know little about the Tao. They spend so much time talking about what they think they know that they end up not putting any of it into actual practice. Without real-life applications, the Tao means nothing. Moss Roberts notes: The word yan, “say,” in line 1 is mainly used to refer to organized speech, the statement of a position. The sage avoids exposing his advocacy; he takes no side and thus does not become one of a pair of opposites.

Yes, it is a good point that to make the following equation balance out, you need them to be one and the same: Practice = Stable Path = Effortlessness For me, the first concept to drop off is 'practice'... and then thoughts of 'stable' and then residing in Path = Effortlessness.

I do two meals a day... three bog me down. But I also eat less overall calories than before. I started paying attention to how much I expel (poop) and was surprised at how much cycles through me. I found I could cut back more and more till I found a balance of energy and waste. I will add that I go through some seasonal tonics or herbs or eating this vs that at times. I'm not rigorous in following some plan but just follow some feeling I have.

thanks for the comments. I think the problem I see is that this industry is well known for having high costs from many angles. Malpractice, data systems & software, equipment, salaries, and big Pharm... and insurance companies complaining they are losing money. I started with an accounting perspective: If you're losing money, you are simply paying out more than you are taking in. Q1: Is that a result of rising costs from these various angles or simply because insurance was capped in some ways and forced to take on patients who need care? they may represent outliers of needing care. I don't have any proof but my gut says it is the patient care influx exceeds the money influx: Claims exceed Policy payments. Here is what I see as another big problem that started with ACA but seeing something getting worse with AHCA, and it ties back to my point of Q1. ACA mandated care even for people who don't really need it nor want it. They were forced to pay for something that they never received. The AHCA now removes the mandate. Q2: Who is more likely to continue their healthcare coverage, those that need it and are running up claims or those who didn't want it in the first place? If the former, what ACHA is doing (I know it is an EO), then the spectrum of people with insurance vs who really uses it, is now skewed ever worse towards the ones submitting so many claims that insurance companies are screaming they bleeding money. Mean, removing the mandate actually makes the insurance company's ability to make money even harder. Another problem. If some areas are willing to reduce costs, the insurance companies may not be willing to pass along those savings so they can get back to their profit margins and shareholder happiness. Q3: What are the top 3-5 expenses that cause the health industry to be so incredibly high in costs ? BTW: A little irony is that my employer based health insurance actually went down !!! But they still get the last laugh... it is now down to $850 a month . But they claim they lost $475 million in 2015 and $650 million in 2016... so they pulled out of many state exchanges (down from 34 to 8).

To explain some of my position. I work with data every day. You can only study the data in front of you. You may know of potential future data coming but then we would be speculating to some degree. Expressing my opinion vs stating what is shown by data will sometimes cross over as interpretation. For me to make any interpretation, I hold off till I see a more complete dataset. My opinion? Competition is not the solution to fix every issue I see in data. I just saw the President's interview with Carlson where he said reducing costs of medicine is in Phase 3. That is one of my big points I have raised in this thread... and so, I need to hold off to see if that happens. I accept that others want to express their opinion in more real-time based on what we know now.

Ok, so I read through this section and still find I like Eno's translation more.... but it differs in several points. But overall, I see ZZ still saying his main point: Forget 'this and that'; forget duality issues of thinking and emotions; focus on singularity of Dao. With some practical comments: If life is good then death is good. The most interesting comment from Eno was: But our human shape will undergo ten thousand future changes and not even begin to reach the end – those joys are beyond calculation. Mair: What incalculable joy there is in these myriad transformations, such as human form, which never begin to reach a limit! Watson: But the human form has ten thousand changes that never come to an end. Your joys, then, must be uncountable. Yutang: To have been cast in this human form is to us already a source of joy. How much greater joy beyond our conception to know that that which is now in human form may undergo countless transitions, with only the infinite to look forward to? Nina: However, a human shape can be changed by any number of things, and those changes might not necessarily ever come to an end. Is there pleasure to be found in counting the victories?

And that was her exact position too... I appreciated her energy and effort to allow open discussion.

But I'm also not assuming no non-benefit. I can only go by what the plan is but the evaluation is not based on the plan. So their evaluation seems naive to me. If there is a phase 2 and/or 3, then we'll see. There is actually no choice other than holding off... because even Phase 1 can change... and it will likely change... so what does that say about evaluating Phase 1 before it is set in stone. I'm not against evaluating based on what we know but it seems a bit careless to make statements about the next decade based on 30% of a plan.

Interesting you quoted Nina... she does have a good view at times

I guess I'm looking for a '101' explanation maybe based on supply and demand as most seem to suggest that competition will fix this. I don't see it happening that easy. It is simply my opinion that premiums raised because folks who didn't have insurance now have it and then use it quite a bit, thus insurers were now paying for lots of claims. When I think to myself, 'why are they losing so much money' (as they claim), I start with a simple accounting perspective: They paid more out than they took in. So I can see the insertion of the government mandating some things to insurers as likely a cause. But I also have to ask, 'why are costs so high in the medical field' ? Government insertion didn't cause that, the medical market has been doing that to itself over the last 50 years. The government insertion simply forced insurance to play out more then before. We must cut costs. I'm not a fan of runaway costs just because life is moving forward. And unless we pool our resources as other countries do, we will continue to get take advantage of in certain costs. We're too dispersed in a sense.

1. I thought the numbers are only based on Phase 1 of 3 (they can't factor in the next two as they don't exist yet)... so the numbers seems meaningless on some level. 2. The elderly pay issue doesn't make sense nor add up in my mind. So that seems another thing too far out there. 3. The rich getting the tax break doesn't make sense either. How can you get a tax break of $50,000 if you only paid say $10,000 for insurance for the year? Or this that something about their businesses providing employees insurance? If a person owns a business, aren't they usually going to get insurance through their business? If so, why would they get a tax break. I have not read any of it to understand such issues.

Who is willing to tackle this question: Why did premiums raise so much over the last few years ? I have assumed it is because more folks were being insured (mandated) who required much more treatment and care... prior to that, maybe the hospitals and/or state picked up that cost but now it was shifted to the insurance companies picking it up (and thus affecting their bottom line) ?

Explain how malpractice insurance is going to lower in your scenario? As long a people can sue for $ billions of dollars without a ceiling, there is a cost without any possible containment. It trickles down to the provider and then on to the consumer. That is just one example. In FL, I used to go to a doctor who had a big sign on his door that the reason his rates were lower was because he put up his own money to fall in the exception of needing malpractice insurance and he hoped that the patients understood this (ie: Don't sue me... let's work on this together). There are cost containment issues that don't care about competition.

I think this is a very interesting point on both sides. Anyone who was/is in the military and was at a base that had its own hospital will maybe observe as I did. 1. They were paid according to rank (maybe that is why they ultimately left the military ), 2. On the flip side, folks used it much more than they needed to. 3. There were no clinics, just the hospital to come get all your care needs meet. 4. etc. Obviously, costs are contained in ways that don't really work in a free-for-all, competitive market... so I have thought about this for quite a long time, given that I also have seen state controlled stuff very similar in china. When do we realize that competition is not the answer to something but cost contained methods that simply are done for the people's needs. I'm not really suggesting this must be done for healthcare but this is what I meant earlier about thinking one size (competition) fits all (solves all needs)...

I agree with Trunk's comment about the complexity and there are too many layers that so-called 'competition' is going to restore order. I raised some issues earlier but no comments so I'm not going to repeat them. There are too many driving interests and I wish the US would see that not everything works by competition for the betterment of the public. In most cases and industries it does live up to its reputation but to think 'one size fits all' is something nobody would agree with but that seems to be the argument here. Like: Why does USPS lose money every year when other mail delivery carriers make money? So competition creates some to make money and others not to... cuz they are just stupid regarding how to work within competition. We need to drive costs down and competition alone won't do something like States lowering their property tax on hospitals for the good of their residence (Oops... just repeated a past statement). It is too complex not too complex to solve... other countries have done it and we do need to look at what works or might work here.

You're pivoting to the opposite now... My comments are in regards to the new proposal but your's is in regards to current one. I'm not talking the current/past. Please.... you can't really believe that... competition is going to solve this? I think there are some in the repeal/replace that do believe this and they are going to face a harsh reality if they hang their hat on that.

That's contentment if I've ever seen it

That's just an example of competition... you're sounding like the media taking words too literally and missing the point

I think you don't really get it. Competition between Humana and Blue Cross will cause pharms to lower costs? cause malpractice insurance to drop? Will cause state property tax on hospitals to drop? The only TRUE way to reduce is a trickle down reduction throughout the entire system... When any one level refuses to reduces, they are the impediment to cost reduction.