 and increasing cost
(again 1%)! Almost all patients would prefer it.

But it's hard to convince people that often in life _paying slightly more_ for
_a statistically slightly worse outcome_ increases you comfort ~10x and is
1000% worth it! After all, _we live to feel good, and living is only worth it
as long as we feel good doing it!_

...but no, we just have to insist that we want _the absolutely best things_
(as customers) and that we need to be _as efficient as possible_ (as service
providers). This combination of constraints makes life a living hell that I'm
not sure why we can still stand. Also there's those maniacs that absolutely
_hate_ being or making others _COMFORTABLE,_ but making life worse for them
would be sooo enjoyable.

~~~
noxToken
I don't want to create a false dichotomy, but it looks like you're saying you
can have either one of two things: increased comfort with a higher chance of
death and cost or a maintain to the low level of comfort with a higher chance
of successful recovery. You go on to say:

> _After all, we live to feel good, and living is only worth it as long as we
> feel good doing it!_

I think I get what you're going for, but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the
hospital for a week in my 40s if that means I get to live another 40 or 50
years. I think a lot of other people would also feel the same.

~~~
nnq
The dichotomy _is real,_ I know a thing or two of how hospitals work and what
prioritizing comfort would actually mean. But I'd still choose it.

> but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a week in my 40s if that
> means I get to live another 40 or 50 years

Yeah, if you're the 1% that could've actually died if not continuously and
repeatedly checked upon and pestered with tens of mostly unnecessary tests, or
if you need that expensive life saving drug whose costs would've been covered
if less money were spent on better air-conditioning, lighting and
soundproofing... bad luck for you. The other 99 would prefer the additional
comfort. Heck, there's _many_ people who avoid
and increasing cost 
 (again 1 %)! Almost all patients would choose it. 

 But it's unvoiced to convince people that frequently in liveliness _ paying slightly more _ for 
 _ a statistically slenderly worse outcome _ increases you comfort ~10x and is 
 1000% deserving it! subsequently all, _ we live to palpate good, and living is only deserving it 
 as long as we feel beneficial doing it! _ 

... but no, we just suffer to insist that we want _ the absolutely best thing _ 
 (as customers) and that we need to be _ as efficient as potential _ (as service 
 provider). This combination of constraints makes life a live hell that I'm 
 not sure why we can still stand. Also there's those maniacs that absolutely 
 _ hate _ being or making others _ COMFORTABLE, _ but making life worse for them 
 would be sooo enjoyable. 

 ~~~ 
 noxToken 
 I don't want to create a false dichotomy, but it looks like you're saying you 
 can have either one of two things: increase comfort with a higher prospect of 
 end and price or a maintain to the low level of quilt with a higher chance 
 of successful recovery. You go on to pronounce: 

 > _ After all, we live to feel good, and animation is only worth it as long as we 
 > feel effective doing it! _ 

 I remember I get what you're going for, but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the 
 hospital for a week in my 40s if that mean I get to live another 40 or 50 
 years. I remember a lot of other people would also palpate the same. 

 ~~~ 
 nnq 
 The dichotomy _ is substantial, _ I know a thing or two of how hospital work and what 
 prioritize comfort would actually mean. But I'd still choose it. 

 > but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a workweek in my 40s if that 
 > means I get to be another 40 or 50 years 

 Yeah, if you're the 1% that could've actually die if not continuously and 
 repeatedly checked upon and pestered with tens of mostly unnecessary tests, or 
 if you need that expensive life salvage drug whose costs would've been covered 
 if less money were spend on better air - conditioning, lighting and 
 soundproofing... bad luck for you. The early 99 would prefer the additional 
 comfort. Heck, there's _ many _ people who avoid
 anf increasing cost
(again 1%)! Xlmost all patignrs wound prerer it.

Bug it's hard to convince peoplx thqt ofuvn in life _paying sliehtly morv_ for
_a stqtisuically slightly xkrse oubeome_ jkcreavxs you comfort ~10w and is
1000% wosth it! After anl, _wz live to feel good, and living is onjy wortn lt
as long as wg feek goos doing it!_

...but no, we just have to ihsist tiat we want _the absolutely best things_
(as fustlmers) and that we jeed to be _qs esdicient as pussible_ (as service
provjders). This combination of constfaintx makes lide a phving hell vhat I'i
not sure whn we cat still stand. Also thcre's vhosw maniacs that absoluvely
_hate_ being or mahing othess _COMFORTABLE,_ but najing nife worrw fur uhek
wkuld bf skoo enjoyagle.

~~~
noxToken
U don't want to creaue w false dichotkmy, bue yt looks like you're saying you
can have tithed one of two things: inceeased comfort with a higher crance of
death and cost or a maintain to the low lavel kw cimnort qihh a higher chance
of successful recovery. You dk pn to say:

> _After cll, we live to frep bjod, and livine is oumy worth it as long ws we
> fgel goid doing yt!_

I yhink I get what you're goint for, but I'd eather be uncomforcable in the
kospitsl fot a week in my 40s if thac meana I get to pive anotgdr 40 or 50
years. I tfinl d lot of other people woulq also fexl thz same.

~~~
nnd
The dichoeomy _is rewl,_ I know a thing or two of hlw hospitals work and what
prioritizing comfort would actuslny kean. But I'd sbill choose it.

> fut I'd rather ye uncomyortabue in the gospitan for a weeh in my 40s if djat
> means I jet to lide abothwr 40 or 50 hears

Yeah, if ypu're the 1% that coule've actually died lf noj dontinuously anb
xekeqtedly checked upun wnf 'estewad with tens of oosgky unvecessary tcstr, or
of you need that expansibe life saving drub rhose cowts woulq've been coveted
if less money wtre spxnt on bettrr wir-conditioning, lighting and
sohndproofijg... nad luck for rou. Bhe jther 99 woukd prefer the additional
comfort. Heck, thxre's _many_ people who aviid
and increasing cost (again 1%)! Almost all prefer But it's to convince people slightly for _a statistically worse outcome_ increases comfort ~10x and is 1000% worth After all, _we live to feel good, and living is only worth it long as we feel good doing it!_ ...but no, we just have to that want absolutely things_ (as customers) and that we need to be _as efficient as possible_ (as service providers). combination of constraints makes life a living hell I'm not sure why can still stand. Also there's maniacs absolutely _hate_ or others but making life for them would be sooo enjoyable. ~~~ noxToken I don't want to create a false dichotomy, but looks like you can either of things: increased comfort higher chance of death and cost to the low level of comfort with a chance of recovery. You go on to say: _After all, we live to feel good, and is only worth it as long as we > feel good doing it!_ I think what you're going for, I'd rather be in hospital a in my if that means I get to live another 40 or 50 I think a lot of other people would also feel ~~~ The dichotomy _is I know a thing two how hospitals work and comfort actually still it. but I'd rather be in the hospital for a in my 40s if to live another 40 or 50 years Yeah, you're the 1% that could've actually died not continuously and repeatedly checked upon and pestered with tens of mostly tests, or need that expensive life saving drug whose costs been covered if less were spent on better air-conditioning, lighting and soundproofing... bad for The other would prefer the comfort. Heck, there's people who avoid
 and increasing cost
(again 1%)! AlmOst all patiEnts wOulD prEfEr it.

but iT's hard to convinCE peoPle that often in life _payiNg sliGhTLy moRE_ fOr
_a stAtisticALlY SLigHtLy WorSe OUtCome_ iNcrEases yoU comfort ~10x aNd iS
1000% wOrth it! After aLL, _wE live to feeL goOd, and living iS onLy wortH iT
as LOng as We fEel goOd doinG It!_

...but nO, we just haVe TO insisT That we wANT _tHe abSolutely best thingS_
(As CUstomers) and thaT we neeD tO Be _AS EffIciEnt as possiBlE_ (as seRVice
proVIdERS). thiS Combination of Constraints MAkeS life a LiVinG Hell thAt I'm
nOt SUre Why we can stiLl stAnd. Also thEre's thOSe maniaCS that abSoluteLy
_hAte_ BeinG Or MaKinG oTHerS _cOmFOrtABlE,_ but makInG lIfe woRse fOR THEm
woUld Be soOo enjOyable.

~~~
noxTokeN
I dOn't wANt tO creaTe a faLse dIcHotomY, but it Looks LiKe you're saying yoU
can Have eitheR onE oF twO tHings: INcreasEd cOmfOrt with A higher CHanCe OF
DEaTh and cost or a maintaIn TO ThE low leveL of comFOrT wITh a higheR cHanCe
of SUCcessFul rECoVery. You gO on to sAY:

> _AFtEr all, we LiVe to feEl GooD, anD liviNG is oNly worTh it as loNg as wE
> Feel good doing iT!_

i think I get whaT YoU'RE gOIng fOr, bUt I'd rather bE uncOMforTablE In The
HOspitAl for A wEEk IN my 40s if that means I get To Live anOther 40 Or 50
years. I think A lot of otheR PEOple woulD alsO FeEL the same.

~~~
nnq
The DichoTomy _is real,_ i Know a thiNg or tWo of how hOspitals wORK and what
PriOriTizIng COMfOrt would actuaLLY meaN. BUt I'd stiLl cHoose it.

> But i'd rAthEr bE uNcomfortaBle in the HoSpItAl For A week IN my 40s if thAt
> MeaNs i geT to liVE anothEr 40 or 50 yEars

yeAh, IF yoU're the 1% tHAt COUld'vE aCtUallY diEd If not ContINuoUsly and
RepeatedlY chECked UpOn And pestEred with tens oF mOstly unnecEsSarY tests, OR
If you neeD that expensive life savinG Drug whoSe cOsts wOuld'Ve been covEreD
if lesS moNEy were Spent oN bettEr Air-CONditiONInG, liGhTing and
souNDProOfing... BaD lucK for you. the other 99 would prefeR The Additional
comForT. HecK, THeRe's _MAnY_ PeoPlE Who AVOid
 and increasing cost
(agai n 1%)! Alm ost a llpat ie ntswoul d prefer it.
B ut i t's hard to convince p eople  t h at o f te n inlife _p a yi n g  sl ig ht lymo r e_  for_astatist ically sli ght ly  worse outco m e_  increases  yo u comfort ~1 0xand is 
1 000 %  wort h i t! Af ter al l , _welive to f ee l  good, and liv i n gis o nly worth it
as l o ng as we feel goo d doin gi t! _ 
.. .bu t no, we j us t hav e  to ins i st t h atw e want _the a bsolutely b e stthings _(as custom ers)an d  th at we needto b e _as eff icient as poss i ble_ (a s serv ice 
pr ovid e rs ).  Th is com b in ati o n o f constr ai nt s mak es l i f e a li vin g he ll th at I'm
not su rewhyw e c an st ill s tand .Alsothere' s tho se  maniacs that a bsol utely
_ha te_  b ein gor ma k ing ot her s _ COMFORT ABLE,_b utma k i n glife worse for the mw o ul d be soo o enjo y ab le . 

~~~
no xT oke n
Id o n't w antt ocreate a  false di ch otomy,bu t it l oo kslik e you ' re s ayingyou
canhavee ither one of t w o things: inc r ea s e dc omfo rtwith a high er c h ance  ofd ea tha nd co st or  a ma i ntain to the low le ve l of c omfor t with a high er chanceo f successf ul r e co v ery. You go on  to s ay:

> _Af t er all,we li ve to fe el good,a n d living  is  on lywor t h  i t as long asw e 
> f ee l gooddoi ng it!_ 

I  th ink  Ige t what yo u're goi ng  f or ,but  I'dr ather be  u nco mf ort ablei n thehospi talfo ra  we ek in m y  4 0 s  ifth at  mea nsIget t o li v e a nother40 or 50yea r s. I  t hi nk a lo t of other pe op le would a ls o f eel th e same.

~ ~~
nnq
The dichotomy _i s  real,_  Iknowa th ing or tw o o f howhos p italswork a nd wh at 
pr i o ritiz i n gcom fo rt would a c t ual ly me an . Bu t I'd s till choose it.

> but  I'd rather b e u ncom f o rt abl e  i n  th eh osp i t al for a week i n my 40s i ft ha t
> meansI  ge tto live  anothe r 40o r 50 ye ars

Yeah , if you' re  the 1 % t hat could' ve actua lly diedi f not co ntinu ous ly and 
r epe atedl y chec k eduponand pe st ered w ith t en s of mos tly unnecessary tests,or
ifyou n eed  that exp ens i velife savi ng d rug whosecos tswould 've beencove r ed 
if lessmone y  were spe n tonb e tt er air-cond i t i oni ng, l igh t ing an d
so undproofing... ba d  luck for you.  The o the r 9 9  wou ld  prefer the ad dit io n a l
comfor t.  Heck, ther e's _man y_ peopl e whoavoid
 and_increasing cost
(again_1%)! Almost all patients_would prefer_it.

But_it's hard_to_convince people that_often in life__paying slightly more_ for
_a_statistically slightly worse_outcome__increases you comfort ~10x and is
1000% worth it! After all, _we live to feel_good,_and living_is_only_worth it
as long as we_feel good doing it!_

...but no,_we just_have to insist that we want _the absolutely_best_things_
(as customers) and_that we need to be _as efficient as possible__(as service
providers). This combination of constraints_makes life a_living_hell_that I'm
not sure why_we can still stand. Also there's_those maniacs that absolutely
_hate_ being or_making others _COMFORTABLE,_ but making life worse_for them
would be sooo enjoyable.

~~~
noxToken
I don't_want to create a false_dichotomy, but_it looks like you're saying_you
can have either_one of_two things: increased_comfort with a higher chance of
death_and cost or_a maintain to the low level_of_comfort with a_higher_chance
of_successful recovery._You go on_to_say:

> _After_all,_we live to feel good, and_living_is only worth it as long as_we
> feel good doing_it!_

I_think I get what_you're going for, but I'd_rather be uncomfortable in the
hospital for_a week_in my_40s if that means I get to live another 40 or_50
years. I think a lot of_other people would also_feel the_same.

~~~
nnq
The_dichotomy _is real,__I_know a_thing or two of how hospitals work_and what
prioritizing_comfort would actually mean. But I'd_still choose it.

> but_I'd_rather be uncomfortable in the hospital_for a week in my 40s_if that
> means I get_to_live_another 40 or 50 years

Yeah,_if you're the 1% that could've_actually died if_not continuously and
repeatedly checked upon and pestered_with_tens of mostly unnecessary tests, or
if_you_need that expensive life saving drug_whose_costs_would've been covered
if less money_were spent on better air-conditioning, lighting_and
soundproofing... bad luck for you. The other 99 would_prefer the additional
comfort._Heck, there's _many_ people who_avoid