Post Reply
Page 8 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View General questions...
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 10:46AM #71
lope
Posts: 11,796

Sep 23, 2011 -- 12:23AM, matica wrote:


Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:


Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:14PM, koolpoi wrote:


Sep 21, 2011 -- 5:44PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:31AM, koolpoi wrote:


Sep 20, 2011 -- 11:52PM, davelaw40 wrote:


Sep 20, 2011 -- 10:37PM, matica wrote:

Should non productive american citizens be forced to die so we do not have to take care of them?

Was there a health care insurance system when Jesus healed?

Should profits and shareholder dividends have precident over life?

Did Jesus teach financial profits were more important than healing?



scripture says everyone should care for their own relatives


anyone that refuses to care for their own is worse than an infidel




But what if the relatives are unable to help or if there are no relatives?Are we our brothers' and sisters' keepers in those cases?I recently saw a video clip from a Republican presidential candidate debate in which many in the audience seemed to favor letting a sick individual die because he didn't have health insurance.I understand that this is the US system but I was surprised at the unabashed pride the audience members seemed to take in allowing someone to die because he lacked money or insurance,especially since the US is the most Christian country in the developed world.I cannot imagine Jesus approving of that audience's attitude.How do you think He would have reacted had He been there?




then the local community steps in


Jesus would have lambasted them as individuals but not expected a government to step in




So how could so many church-going people be so wrong while a more secular European crowd would have been more likely to react as Jesus would have expected?





What do you actually know of what Jesus would have expected? Let me ask you something....given the arguments all over this forum right now, why did Jesus not call upon Caesar or Pontius Pilate to start a social program for the 'needy' of the time since Rome was basically the 'government'?


The fact of the matter is that Jesus never once stated, nor insinuated, that the government was to put people up in free housing and food banks. He always focused on the individual.





Um Jesus was not a stupid retard, he knew full well what taxes went for when they went to Ceasar, there for Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. It's been well documented Rome had a socialist society, and the Isrealites lived with in that society. Meaning they did not have insurance companies, if you needed to see a doctor you were not asked by a Roman physician if you could afford it or not.


The government doesn't put anyone up in free housing, they offer subsidized housing, the tennants are still responsible for paying rent. Food banks aren't set up to provide alllll the foold for a family, they are set up...not by the governmment but by private organizations who recieve donations of food that help a family to eat food, not provide for allllll their food, but to help feed children mostly.


So going back to the church...Jesus would lamblast an individual who could afford to help the poor, but refused to do so and worse yet claimed Jesus would refuse to help the poor as well. He would have definatley lamblasted any individual who desired to rob from the poor, much like we witness by the fake christians on these discussions.





Objecting to incompetence in government is not robbing from the poor.  Saying it many times that Christians are robbing the poor by objecting to the governments financial mismanagement does not make it true.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:08PM #72
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:48PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

 


Again, it is either the  government's job or the marketplace's (policed by the government)  job.





Why. 


I am asking if it is the governments job, and you are telling me how they can accomplish it.  My question is not how, but who. 


That no one else will do it is not a good enough answer, as I do not feel that we have given enough of a chance. 



 

Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:48PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

 


Those are the choices. You  can't say neither the market nor government will provide healthcare unless you  are suggesting some kind of abolition.




Is there some part of "Anarchist" that you don't understand?


Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:48PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

 


  

It's not as simple as this,  but if we don't trust government, why should we trust large unregulated  corporate interests?

 




 


I don't.


 


all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:10PM #73
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Sep 23, 2011 -- 10:46AM, lope wrote:


Objecting to incompetence in government is not robbing from the poor.  Saying it many times that Christians are robbing the poor by objecting to the governments financial mismanagement does not make it true.




 


I couldn't agree more. 

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:18PM #74
Jenandew7
Posts: 13,479

Sep 23, 2011 -- 10:46AM, lope wrote:




Objecting to incompetence in government is not robbing from the poor.  Saying it many times that Christians are robbing the poor by objecting to the governments financial mismanagement does not make it true.




I think its wise to object to graft, corruption, fraud and greed.  There is certainly nothing unChristian about watchdogging.  And heavy penalties should be instituted in cases where a company is caught charging usurious or worse prices.  I have heard of thousands of dollars charged for a screw.  I am suggesting seriously blacklisting any supplier that shows any hint of corruption and never be allowing them to submit bids or provide goods for US gov't programs again.  The list might grow quite long before people catch on that we won't tolerate it. 


By and large, I'm personally all for Christians helping the poor and we have ample opportunities even with gov't assistance for the poor.  In fact, some still go hungry. 

If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. --Isaiah 58:10
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:36PM #75
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,105

Sep 23, 2011 -- 1:08PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:



Is there some part of "Anarchist" that you don't understand?




all,


I'm going to assume that  you are as tired of this question as I am. Fine - no government, no market,  anarchy.

  

No regulation of drugs, no  mandated standards for treatment, no courts for settling claims of malpractice,  no accredidation of health facilliites or doctors, no public health policy for  coordinated efforts to address a contagion/epidemic [stupid government!  eridacating polio! they can't do sh*t right! why is eradicatin' polio a  govenmnet job!?!], etc. and viola! we all be the healthier for this. I am sure  it will have a positive effect on rates of infant mortality and raise our  life-expectancy. It's only obvious.

  

Serious question  - if  there is a good health system (i.e. a system that provides high-quality,  easy-access, low-cost coverage/care) that involves substantial government  involvement, is it still just inherently bad?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:39PM #76
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Sep 23, 2011 -- 1:36PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


 


  

Serious question  - if  there is a good health system (i.e. a system that provides high-quality,  easy-access, low-cost coverage/care) that involves substantial government  involvement, is it still just inherently bad?



 


Depends, you feel like riding down a slippery slope with me? 

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 1:46PM #77
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,105

Only if there is good beer.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 2:40PM #78
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Sep 23, 2011 -- 1:46PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


Only if there is good beer.




 


Would I go there if there wasn't?


 


With the free market, and no regulation on the competing groups, you will have a variety of services available.  By which I mean, an individual company could have increased rates for say, a smoker, or a diabetic, etc.  The individual person would be free to go to a different company for a different rate that was not as stringent as before.  With no regulation on them as to the number of places that could offer it, if larger companies, as you see now, were not competitive, smaller companies could pick up the slack.  Of course, all of that is on a fee for service basis which will by it's very nature exclude some. 


It is important to remember that a government controls more aspects of life than just insurance.  If they are responsible for insuring the individual, but are effectively a monopoly, the individual must deal with aspect say as fines for smoking.  There are no competing groups that offer competitive services. 


 


Let's look specifically at smoking.  Say the government insures all its population.  Smoking is a known health risk.  Stating that it is a health risk has not deterred people.  Higher taxes on a pack have not deterred people.  The government would next move to the solution that the insurance companies took.  Charging people more.  The form that this would likely take is fines.  A person who has a blood test and shows nicotine or metabolic by products in their blood would be forced to pay a fine.  Of course this is fair, right?  The government would have to pay more to take care of these people undertaking a known health risk, and it is unfair to charge more to the people not undertaking the risk in the form of taxes, right? 


Fast forward.  The fines have not deterred people from smoking.  The government, not wishing to pay more for increased care takes the next step.  They make it illegal to smoke.  This is a step that the insurance companies could not take. 


 


Now apply that to other aspects that are detrimental.  Alcohol, sugar, red meat, high fructose corn syrup, motorcycling, air travel, etc.  You don't think it will go there?  Look at the auto industry, the air travel industry, tv, and radio.  It's already starting. 


Even I say that if the government is going to pay for the up keep and construction of the roads, that it is their right to dictate the manner in which they are used.  If the government is going to pay for the maintenance of our bodies, how long before it becomes their right to dictate the manner that we live in our bodies? 


I'm not saying that it would happen in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes, or even our grandchildren's lifetimes, but it more than likely would happen.  And it would happen not because we thought about the consequences of our actions, but because we wanted a solution to the problem that we had at hand, and we so eager to get it solved that we turned over something like this to something like the government that we have now. 


 


all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 3:04PM #79
tfvespasianus
Posts: 2,105

all,


 

As for unregulated markets,  these have been deficient for several reasons. There is the problem of  elasticity of demand and the fact of efficiencies generated through economies of  scale. For example, when the maximum efficiency benefit derived from  consolidation equals the size of the market, a natural monopoly exists. Of  course, most healthcare is delivered in and around where people live. And so  on... Pointing to a pure market solution for our current troubles is, to me,  even more utopian (or is it dystopian?) than proposing anarchism as the solution  of how to deal with an ageing population that numbers in the millions.

 

As for the 'slippery  slope', I think it is a tired rhetorical device. Also, first and foremost, a  long while back, I proposed three examples of real-world examples of healthcare  systems, two of which entail market mechanisms (single-payer and the Swiss  model) and thus, the 'government monopoly' portion of you argument doesn't apply  to those. I do appreciate that you do say 'of course, this doesn't happen now,  but it could in the future', but I for one don't think it's worth sacrficing the  life and quality of life of tens of thousands of people per annum in the name of  the possibility of a dystopian outcome at some undefined  point in the future. I don't think currently operating successful systems of healthcare  lead us to that conclusion either.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2011 - 3:21PM #80
matica
Posts: 3,067

Ok, christians tithe 10%, and just where does most of that money go too, really big elaborate and very expensive churches that cost a lot of money to run and upkeep. I know all too well, I was on a church budget committe that was struggeling to find a way to add another 1.8 million dollars to make the church bigger on top of the 1.6 million that was already being paid off, not to mention the $106,000 yearly budget they needed for staff and janitors.......and that was a small church!


Volunteers take a vow of poverty and go to other countries to provide aid, yet the ones sending them are making an average of$80k per year. Which isn't including the free perks they get....compliments of the government.


So, christians as it stand now are not taking care of their own, or anyone else for that matter. although there are a few religious homeless shelters run by true christians and some soup kitchens where oh my god, even atheist and agnostics volunteer.


When health insurance companies were deregulated what happened, hundreds of thousands were either refused coverage for life saving treatments, or just arbitrarily dropped. Esp. hurt were people were had a condition who was dropped from a insurance company could not get health insurance because of the preexisting condition. Insurance rates rose to unaffordable levels, some people's incomes were cut in half paying for health insurance....not paying for taxes.


So yes, it is governments responsibility to protect it's citizens, they do it with the military, with DOHD, etc. And esp. when it comes to health care, the government has the responsibility to protect the ones who are taken advantage of, it's called they write laws. And it sure ticks me off when I hear of government waste, esp. the stupid amount of money it takes to run for public office, but what really ticks me off is when a big corporation promises us jobs if they get multi billion dollar tax breaks and bail outs and they turn around and hire some slaves in another country and give themselves billions of dollars in bonus's for hiring slave labor in other countries. Oh, and of course sink millions of dollars into politicians pockets.


And don't mention hospitals that are run by religious oranizations......have you ever gotten a hospital bill from one of them?


Face it, christianity cannot and will not help the sick or the poor. They only want to help themselves so they won't go to hell, CYA.


The only recourse this country has is government. And if someone wants to abolish the federal government and give everything under state control, in no time we'll have Texas and Arizona invading other states and expecting converstion or death and in no time the whole country will be under the control of Texas......and here we go again, a ruling government.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 10  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook