Assuming what you are contending is true, (which I do not really admit is not-simple enough to be true), what makes you think you know how to rig a system to achieve the ends you desire? (nevermind the fact that you want to take from your peers to achieve your ends, and nevermind questioning why you ought to be able to obtain the authority to do that.) Why is your system more viable and better long term for all or even any? And furthermore, who are you econocluelessts who think that poor people buying food and toilet paper is somehow a more productive use of the 9% capital? Safety nets are good. Stop trying to reingineer society under the guise of concern for such noble inventions.

I've long believed that in order to properly simulate the brain, you must simulate the universe as well. After all, the difference between the interactions amongst the physical stuff that makes up my brain and my surroundings is not much different from the interactions that took place when the matter in the now most distant galaxy was nearer by. The difference is only in degree of separation. So what is a simulated brain that does not take into account what is going on inside Jupiter? Or what is a simulated brain that does not take into account the brain activity taking place on Europa or Titan at this very moment? Not to mention the plasma being ejected from the sun a couple of days ago. I say, those simulated brains are necessarily less than real brains. And those who owe their thinking to pretend brains will remain second class citizens.

That's because the hardware on which the emulator runs has it's own real electrons, semi-conductive materials, and temeratures to take care of that need.

Actually they understand this position perfectly well, and they will take you one further to a point you have not yet considered, apparently. The most advantaged competitor (that would be what we call federal government, whether in a more limited capacity as a minor regulator to an all-out "public-option" provider) has a distinct ability and tendency to eat away at the whole of the system, like cancer. And the more intervention there is in the system by those that "know" how best to intervene, the more cancerous and debilitating the intervention becomes. So a few years of seemingly blissful universal healthcare for all is not worth healthcare for no one at some not too distant point in the future. I hope you understand now.

ummm apparently you didn't perform your reading comprehension when you read my comment. I don't know if yours is even worth replying to... because it's as if you are replying to someone else's comment. But in the event that you are replying to my comment and/or in the event that others may be similarly confused (I think this is what I was referring to in my initial comment, actually) I will reply.

Science can NOT demonstrate that science MATTERS. There- I changed the order of the words. Hope that helps. "Matter-ing" is a matter of faith and belief. This is really not up for dispute. (Unlike the position that children "ought" to be taught science and "ought not" be taught philosophy or religion or meta-physics, for example)