The right to a decent minimum of health care

Buchanan examines, and finds inadequate, several philosophical approaches to justifying and specifying the content of a universal right to a decent minimum of health care: utilitarian arguments, Rawlsian ideal contract arguments, and Norman Daniels' equality of opportunity argument. Also rejecting the libertarian hypothesis that there is no right to a decent minimum of care, he contends that the claim that society should guarantee certain health care services can be supported by a pluralistic approach encompassing special right-claims, harm prevention, prudential arguments emphasizing public health benefits, and beneficence.     

Why 2 + 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in sum verification

The odd-even status of a sum depends on the odd-even status of its addends. A sum must be odd if an odd number of its addends are odd; else it must be even. A proposed sum that violates the required odd-even status of the sum—that is, deviates from the correct sum, whether odd or even, by an odd value (e.g., splits of ±1, ±3, ±5)—can be rejected immediately as false. Subjects in the present study did indeed use the odd-even rule in sum verification, because they were as fast and accurate in rejecting a split of ±1 as one of ±2, and a split of ±3 as one of ±4, even though a larger split generally is easier to reject (symbolic distance effect), and splits of ±3 and ±4 were rejected faster and more accurately than those of ±1 and ±2. Performance on separate odd-even tasks indicated that the odd-even properties of numbers and sums are readily available for use by adults, and that persons who do well on such tasks are especially likely to use the odd-even rule in sum verification.