If state provided healthcare is so bad....

[Dawkinsrocks]

You implied that you are capable of interpreting the bible when you indiated that the bit in the bible about the rich man and the eye of the needle doesn't mean what it says

Want to have another go big rob?

Just about every country in the western world accepts that a country has a moral duty to look after the health and welfare of its citizens

Except the US

Just about every country in the western world accepts that capital punishment is abhorent

Ezcept the US

Letting your people die because they lack the money for the very expensive insurance or even more expensive healthcare is utterly disgusting and one day it will be looked on in the way we now look on the US' treatment of the native Americans, blacks, hispanics, gays, Cubans, South Americans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Koreans etct for a very long list.

Your leaders say to you that terrrrrrrrrrsts attack you because they are jealous of your freedoms...what a joke

US healthcare is more dangerous to US citizens than AQ and all your murderers combined

And it is the most expensive in the world

So argue away whether it is a right or ot

It is definitely a wrong

 

[BigRob]

You implied that you are capable of interpreting the bible when you indiated that the bit in the bible about the rich man and the eye of the needle doesn't mean what it says

Want to have another go big rob?

I said "Seeing as how I don't take the bible literally..no, its not all that inconvenient."

How exactly do you get that I am implying I am capable of interpreting the bible?

Just about every country in the western world accepts that a country has a moral duty to look after the health and welfare of its citizens

Except the US

The United States has an extensive safety net in place. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, SCHIP, there are countless programs in place for people who cannot obtain insurance, and the idea that anyone is denied care is wrong.

Just about every country in the western world accepts that capital punishment is abhorent

Ezcept the US

So what?

Letting your people die because they lack the money for the very expensive insurance or even more expensive healthcare is utterly disgusting and one day it will be looked on in the way we now look on the US' treatment of the native Americans, blacks, hispanics, gays, Cubans, South Americans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghanis, Koreans etct for a very long list.

Except this is not the reality of what actully occurs.

Your leaders say to you that terrrrrrrrrrsts attack you because they are jealous of your freedoms...what a joke

I agree -- terrorists don't care about our freedoms.

US healthcare is more dangerous to US citizens than AQ and all your murderers combined

Another absurd claim that is not worth discussing.

And it is the most expensive in the world

Because we don't let the market work.

So argue away whether it is a right or ot

It is definitely a wrong

If it is not a "right" -- then there is no reason for me to pay for your care.

 

[Openmind]

Do you seriously not see the difference between being forced to do something and choosing to do something? I choose to help people everyday -- not sure why opposing being forced to do so somehow makes me some horrible person in your mind.



What is it exactly that you do to help these people? Donate? Great me too. Pay taxes? Great me too. What is it that you do that I don't exactly that lets you make some pathetic attempt at claiming moral high ground?

No -- I can't, and wont, help everyone-- nor do you, nor does the government. What makes the government method better than me getting to decide?



So I suppose its your right to change it for me?

YOU may choose to do something for people everyday. But MANY who have the same and Obviously MUCH greater resources than you do choose to do NOTHING everyday.

What is the difference between having an organize distribution of resources, and giving some of the resources given based on criterias that can be extremely biased?
If charity alone was sufficient to assure that the inequality would shrink (instead of skyrocketing, as it has done over the last 30 years, and especially over the last 10 years, since Bush tax cuts), it would have been sufficient for centuries. . .we would not have had child labor, and labor situations such as are described in "The Jungle," we would NOT have people without health care, we would NOT see children going to school hungry.

If charity was enough to replace the government. . .would charity expand to cover infrastructure, protection of the environment, fresh water for all, electrical grids that provide electricity even in remote places? Would we have such infrastructure accomplishment such as the Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate bridge?

Would we have airports? How much of the medical research would be in existence, or where would the new medical progress come uniquely from Europe where the government does subsidize research.

France subsidize the cost of medical programs for students. BECAUSE of this, the cost of healthcare is MUCH lower in France, and doctors do NOT expect to make huge profits because of their chosen career. They are satisfied with making a very decent living, probably within the top 5% of the labor market. . .but they can (and DO) concentrate not on "reimbursing college loans" and making huge money, but on their vocation of healing people. From that "government intervention" comes "Doctors without borders," something that would NEVER have existed without the government helping gifted, devoted students come out of medical school without the burden of debt.

You seem to think that you know it all, that you thought of everything, that you live such a self-righteous life that NO ONE can point to any weakness in your (and people MUCH wealthier than you are) "rose color" life of "charity" and good citizenship.

Charity has always existed, and always will exist. A HUGE amount of charity is NEVER accounted for, because it can't be quantify: a meal brought to a sick neighbor, a few hours of babysitting for three small children when their mother goes out to a job interview, even the used clothes that that mother will put on to look decent for the job interview.

That will NEVER be demonstrated in the "statistics" about charity. . .yet, it COUNTS greatly. And still it isn't enough to really make a dent, especially in times of huge economic problems, in the misery of people. Even government programs are barely keeping up with the minimum survival needs of some people. There is so much TRASH about "EXCESS" with food stamps!

I rather my tax dollars cover one person who buys soda pop and candies for her kids, or who doesn't absolutely need the ridiculously low amount of food stampt he/she gets to survive, IF this means that 3 other families in need also get the help that they REALLY need.

Let me point out that your point of view sounds like that of a young teenager, who is revolting against his parents and will do ANYTHING to assert what he think is his ability to "control" his life, then runs into trouble.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Big rob, if you don't take the bible literally and you don't interpret it...

How do you take it?

 

[BigRob]

YOU may choose to do something for people everyday. But MANY who have the same and Obviously MUCH greater resources than you do choose to do NOTHING everyday.

So what? If they don't want to help so be it.

What is the difference between having an organize distribution of resources, and giving some of the resources given based on criterias that can be extremely biased?

If you don't like the way a charity is operating -- don't give them your money. Can I stop giving my money to the government?

If charity alone was sufficient to assure that the inequality would shrink (instead of skyrocketing, as it has done over the last 30 years, and especially over the last 10 years, since Bush tax cuts), it would have been sufficient for centuries. . .

Is it your assertion that charity needs to exist to "shrink income inequality"?

we would not have had child labor, and labor situations such as are described in "The Jungle," we would NOT have people without health care, we would NOT see children going to school hungry.

Government has been taking a big stab at these problems for decades now -- how has that gone?

If charity was enough to replace the government. . .

Red Herring alert -- no one has made such a claim.

would charity expand to cover infrastructure, protection of the environment, fresh water for all, electrical grids that provide electricity even in remote places? Would we have such infrastructure accomplishment such as the Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate bridge?

Would we have airports? How much of the medical research would be in existence, or where would the new medical progress come uniquely from Europe where the government does subsidize research.

Is any of this supposed to address the subject at hand? We are discussing charity and helping people, and you are suddenly talking about infrastructure and airports.

France subsidize the cost of medical programs for students. BECAUSE of this, the cost of healthcare is MUCH lower in France, and doctors do NOT expect to make huge profits because of their chosen career. They are satisfied with making a very decent living, probably within the top 5% of the labor market. . .but they can (and DO) concentrate not on "reimbursing college loans" and making huge money, but on their vocation of healing people. From that "government intervention" comes "Doctors without borders," something that would NEVER have existed without the government helping gifted, devoted students come out of medical school without the burden of debt.

Our government heavily subsidizes the cost of college education as well -- so what?

You seem to think that you know it all, that you thought of everything, that you live such a self-righteous life that NO ONE can point to any weakness in your (and people MUCH wealthier than you are) "rose color" life of "charity" and good citizenship.

Not sure how you got that -- I am wrong many times -- and I readily accept that there are people with far more money than me. None of this changes that I don't want to be forced to subsidize the existence of other people. If I choose to do so -- fine. If I don't -- fine.

Charity has always existed, and always will exist. A HUGE amount of charity is NEVER accounted for, because it can't be quantify: a meal brought to a sick neighbor, a few hours of babysitting for three small children when their mother goes out to a job interview, even the used clothes that that mother will put on to look decent for the job interview.

Don't dispute this -- and all of this occurs without the government demanding it.

That will NEVER be demonstrated in the "statistics" about charity. . .yet, it COUNTS greatly. And still it isn't enough to really make a dent, especially in times of huge economic problems, in the misery of people. Even government programs are barely keeping up with the minimum survival needs of some people. There is so much TRASH about "EXCESS" with food stamps!

What is the "minimum survival needs" of a person in your opinion?

I rather my tax dollars cover one person who buys soda pop and candies for her kids, or who doesn't absolutely need the ridiculously low amount of food stampt he/she gets to survive, IF this means that 3 other families in need also get the help that they REALLY need.

You would rather demand I pay more money on the off chance it helps someone, than to establish stricter controls of who can get these programs in the first place?

I wouldn't -- and I will vote and support political candidates accordingly.

Let me point out that your point of view sounds like that of a young teenager, who is revolting against his parents and will do ANYTHING to assert what he think is his ability to "control" his life, then runs into trouble.

Thank you for stating your opinion on the subject.

 

[Openmind]

So what? If they don't want to help so be it.



If you don't like the way a charity is operating -- don't give them your money. Can I stop giving my money to the government?



Is it your assertion that charity needs to exist to "shrink income inequality"?



Government has been taking a big stab at these problems for decades now -- how has that gone?



Red Herring alert -- no one has made such a claim.



Is any of this supposed to address the subject at hand? We are discussing charity and helping people, and you are suddenly talking about infrastructure and airports.



Our government heavily subsidizes the cost of college education as well -- so what?



Not sure how you got that -- I am wrong many times -- and I readily accept that there are people with far more money than me. None of this changes that I don't want to be forced to subsidize the existence of other people. If I choose to do so -- fine. If I don't -- fine.



Don't dispute this -- and all of this occurs without the government demanding it.



What is the "minimum survival needs" of a person in your opinion?



Great -- I wouldn't -- and I will vote and support political candidates accordingly.



Thank you for stating your opinion on the subject.

You're welcome.

 

[BigRob]

Big rob, if you don't take the bible literally and you don't interpret it...

How do you take it?

I don't really do anything with the bible.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But you did say there is no incompatibility between being rich and being Christian

And you did try to get yourself off the hook when I played the eye of the needle card by saying you don't take the bible literally

If the bible says there is an incompatibility between wealth and Christianity what are your grounds for asserting that there isn't when you don't take the bible at all?

 

[BigRob]

But you did say there is no incompatibility between being rich and being Christian

Because I do not believe that there is.

And you did try to get yourself off the hook when I played the eye of the needle card by saying you don't take the bible literally

I simply stated what I believed.

If the bible says there is an incompatibility between wealth and Christianity what are your grounds for asserting that there isn't when you don't take the bible at all?

The bible only says that when you ignore large parts of it in an attempt to cherry pick your case.

 

[GenSeneca]

YOU may choose to do something for people everyday. But MANY who have the same and Obviously MUCH greater resources than you do choose to do NOTHING everyday.

So your point is that these people should be forced to help others?

 

[GenSeneca]

If the bible says there is an incompatibility between wealth and Christianity what are your grounds for asserting that there isn't when you don't take the bible at all?

The young rich man's sin was not that he was rich, his sin was placing his love of wealth ahead of his love of God. That's what was preventing him from entering the kingdom of heaven. That is why he was instructed to give away all his wealth.

 

[dogtowner]

The young rich man's sin was not that he was rich, his sin was placing his love of wealth ahead of his love of God. That's what was preventing him from entering the kingdom of heaven. That is why he was instructed to give away all his wealth.

you're killing his buzz. please refrain from being reasonable. ok belay that last bit : )

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Hang on big rob, do you take the bible literally or metaphorically?

If you don't take it at all why do you keep using it to substantiate your arguments?

At best it sounds like you are saying the bible is contradictory on the subject of the compatibility of wealth and Christianity which implies you are interpreting the bible which as we all know you don't do

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And what is it about paying a little extra in tax to ensure that everyone has healthcare that offends you so much?
P
It doesn't offend me

I am much happier knowingthat my fellow countrymen all have access to good healthcare for a small contribution from me and others. It seems to me that you would have to be pretty vile to object

The fact is that the single biggest determinant of how you will turn out is the accident of your birth

You can argue all you like that it is how hard you work but if you had been born in Ethiopia your life would have been very different indeed no matter how hard you worked

Similarly, being born into a poor single parent family massively increases your likelihood of being poor yourself

So what is wrong with those lucky enough to be born into favourable circumstances helping out?

I am really struggling to not think it is because a disproportionate number of poor people are black

So come on good Christian patriotic Americans ...what is wrong with contributing a tiny bit extra for the knowledge that your countrymen don't need to die prematurely for want of healthcare?

 

[GenSeneca]

And what is it about paying a little extra in tax to ensure that everyone has healthcare that offends you so much?

Being forced, by law, to engage in uncompensated labor for the benefit of someone else.

Your turn to answer a question:

What is it about allowing people the freedom to choose whether or not they'd like to render assistance to those in need that so greatly offends you?

I am really struggling to not think it is because a disproportionate number of poor people are black

The majority of "poor" people in America are white.