Change of heart on socialized medicine

[rtconstant]

I think you need to clarify your position here. I really hope you’re not saying it is immoral to make money in the medical field. I don’t think you can possibly say that it is immoral to make a profit from someone’s misfortune. The auto repair industry makes money off of people’s misfortune in their car being broken. Is that immoral? What about the appliance repair men? If you can’t make a profit, no one is going to do it. Then you’ll be stuck.

Its OK to make money in the medical industry. However, medicine is an industry that should focused on outcome not profit. When Profit becomes the goal, then you’ve slipped into immorality. Working on a car is one thing. After a car is luxury and is itself an inanimate object. Medicine is working on people and taking advantage of a human beings physical disadvantages to make money is immoral. Also accepting a person’s money while denying their treatment is likewise immoral.

 

[rtconstant]

Interesting what your understanding is – that profit is a financial gain on someone else’s misfortune.

For the rest of the world, profit is nothing more than the difference between your total cost and your selling price. If your costs and expenses are higher than your revenues from selling, than you have a loss. If your expenses and costs are lower than your revenues then you have a profit.

If you continuously have losses, then you can’t pay your bills and you go out of business. Which is what happened to General Motors, for example. Companies that are badly managed and lose money go out of business all the time.

If you have profits you can bridge over the bad times and can afford to stay in business.

If your profits are too high, then other companies will be attracted to your kind of business and you will have competition.

It’s a delicate balance.

The poster was making two distinct statements. The first sentence was a belief that perhaps you were correcting a misspelled word. The second was a statement that making profit off of another’s misfortune is a sin. I’m sure aspawloski4th understands what the term profit means.

 

[Shoshana]

I jsut spoke to my american soon to be brother-in-law and he said that friends of his (their daughter really) got AIDS And the insurance company dropped her and the WHOLE FAMILY from coverage. In other words, they were kicked to the curb! Because it would way to costly to cover the whole family!

 

[royal_archer]

Where has he said that evil actions can be justified by the ends they serve? Note that you must be able to give an example where the President himself believes the actions to be evil. The fact that *you *think the action in question to be evil is irrelevant to the accusation you have made: that the “left” thinks that the ends justify the means. That is not the same thing as “the left misguidedly does evil things to attain good ends” (i.e., promotes legalized abortion in order to protect women, etc.).

So are you proposing that Obama and others of like mind feel that discrimatory taxes are good even though they violate the 14th ammendment?

I qualified what I said by saying that in totalitarianism individual rights are not considered sacred. That’s the “absolute” in question. In totalitarianism the state is the absolute. “Socialized medicine” isn’t partial totalitarianism. It isn’t totalitarianism at all. It’s just government involvement in something you think should be left to the private sector. Using scare words like this degrades the discussion, no matter how much you try to qualify them.

The medicine itself is not, the means used to facilitate it are.

What human rights do you think are going to be violated?

5th, 10th, 13th and 14th ammendments.

If you are talking about abortion, I agree with you. But obviously pro-choice folks don’t think they are violating human rights, so they are still not guilty of claiming that the ends justify the means. They are just horribly wrong about whether a certain action (abortion) is intrinsically evil or not. If you are claiming that any of the healthcare plans on the table somehow violate people’s basic human rights by too much government involvement, then you need to make the case rather than assuming it. The claim seems downright weird to me.

I am specifically talking about the infringement on our rights as outlined in the Constitution.

 

[royal_archer]

Straw man. If giving up one’s “hard-earned money” causes personal danger and suffering, then that’s another matter. But what you and others here seem to be claiming is that the right to private property is absolute and hence even the suffering of others doesn’t override it. This is heretical.

I disagree, Please provide the reference which overrides the 10 commandments.

But if your own shirt wasn’t enough, would you use someone else’s? I certainly would.

Would you see that that person were reimbursed for damages afterward?

I could describe the situation my parents have been in just recently to show that this isn’t so simple (they are uninsured and my mother had a blood clot). But I don’t like talking about personal matters on the Internet and dragging my parents into this. Stick with the poster “pathia,” who has been explicitly told that her life is worth less than some other poster’s right to keep her hard-earned cash. That’s just plain abominable.

Have you given all of your money to “pathia” or do you just want to put burdens on others that you are not willing to take up yourself?

First of all, we are supposed to bear each other’s burdens. And in the second place, you choose to make this judgment when you cannot possibly know that it’s true of everyone. And in the third place, what you are really saying is that everyone should spend all their time trying to figure out how to get rich, and if they don’t it’s their own fault if they can’t pay their medical bills.

If we are to bear each others burdens should all with self destructive behavior be able to go to the government to get money to relieve their burdens? I make this evaluation based on my personal experience with others and what I have learned though trying to help them. One does not have to “get rich” to be a contributing member of society.

Your blind faith, unsupported by evidence, would be touching if the object of your faith were not such a monstrous idol.

Faith that the Holy Spirit does and will continue to guide the hearts of Americans. Do you consider the Holy spirit a “monstrous idol”?

 

[royal_archer]

I’m not sure what you mean by “defenseless.” And my point in saying “we as society” was that indeed sometimes society does act through government. Otherwise why have a government at all? Just to kill people? Why not be an anarchist? That’s a position I can respect. But if the government can restrain our evil and selfishness by sending people to jail, it can also restrain our evil and selfishness by ensuring that we do not hoard our wealth when the poor are going without basic necessities.

Edwin

So you respect anarchy but think the government should put selfish people in jail?

 

[royal_archer]

If you have enough to eat and a roof over your head, the rest is surplus.

People who oppose welfare programs and the like are very quick to decide what is surplus for the poor. But the glorious and supposedly embattled middle class gets to revel in luxury unparalleled (at this level of society) in the history of the world without anyone pointing fingers.

Edwin

So your solutionis to remove people’s motivation to work?

 

[royal_archer]

“Coveting” does not mean “desiring the necessities of life.” And it is not stealing to take those necessities or for the government to ensure that the poor receive them.

The idea that taxation is theft is sheer nonsense, unsupported by Scripture, tradition, or reason. Christians have always acknowledged the government’s right to tax its citizens. If the government can tax for purposes such as defense, clearly it can tax in order to help the poor as well. In both cases the government is taking from private citizens in order to promote the common good.

Edwin

I was not speaking about fiar taxes, I was speaking about discrimatory taxes such as those used to manipulate voters into supporting various candidates.

 

[royal_archer]

What you haven’t explained is why you think that’s a relevant question here.

I am glad to hear that the OP was satire. I hoped it was, but one hears such bizarre opinions on the Internet that I thought I’d better take it seriously just in case. However, you still haven’t established that what you are satirizing (the supposed willingness of the “left” to do what it knows to be evil in order to accomplish good) actually exists on any large scale.

Edwin

Do you think taking a person’s personal possessions and not giving them something of equal value in return can be considered a good thing?

 

[royal_archer]

There are those of us who believe that helath care should be available to everyone and just not a few…

No one disagrees with that, the disagreement surrounds what methods are used to make that happen.

Let’s say the government started drilling off shore and created a stream of revenue so great that it could fund health care. At that point many in opposition would start supporting it. Or lets say it was funded by an import tarriff. Or if everyone payed into the system through either hours or through equivalent labor. or a host of other means that did not punnish some for productive behavior to reward others for non productive behavior.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t know who the “you” are, but I’m not “eager to pass it.” I care about whether abortion is included. I care about many of the concerns that have been raised.

Where I differ with many folks on this forum is on the question of whether the government can rightly use taxation to take care of the needs of the poor and sick. The OP seems to regard this as stealing, but has presented no argument backing up this opinion. He has not explained whether he regards all taxation as stealing, or what criteria might distinguish taxation that is stealing from taxation that is not. One other poster has gone so far as to suggest that her rights to keep her earnings are more important than preserving the lives and well-being of other human beings. From my perspective, these are the issues that need to be debated. It’s not a question of being “eager to pass” any particular legislation, although I do think that some kind of reform is urgently needed.

Edwin

There are legitimate taxes but to be so they must be derived for the purpose of funding activity that the government has been authorized to partake in by the Constitution. They must, where practicable, be proportional to the benefit gained. The must not be discriminatory in their nature. Among other things.

What argument needs to be given to show that taking from someone against their will and with out due process of law is stealing. Such an act is essentially the definition of stealing.

steal  /stil/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
Use steal in a Sentence
See web results for steal
See images of steal
–verb (used with object) 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4. to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5. Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6. Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7. to gain or seize more than one’s share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.

–verb (used without object) 8. to commit or practice theft.
9. to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10. to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11. Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.

–noun 12. Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13. Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14. Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15. Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.

—Idiom16. steal someone’s thunder, to appropriate or use another’s idea, plan, words, etc.

---

Origin:
bef. 900; 1860–65 for def. 5; ME stelen, OE stelan; c. G stehlen, ON stela, Goth stilan

Related forms:

steal⋅a⋅ble, adjective
stealer, noun

dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

 

[royal_archer]

google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apolitics&btnG=Search

Politics: Social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power;

Jesus was not into politics -God is not into politics. Satan is into poliltics.

"The devil then took Jesus to the top of a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Then said, “**All this authority I will give You **and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.”

So why didnt jesus work with the devil? Why didnt he cut a deal? Surely he could have ended poverty, or a few wars by meeting satan “in the middle”… But Jesus is righteous, and does not get involved in politics. We should be more like Jesus.

So if all the kingdoms of the world have been delivered to Satan, then why not let Gods children divide this “authority” outside the dirty hands of the govornment. Say NO to big govornment… Say no to secularization. Say yes to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…Amen.

Jesus did speak about matters of health as recorded in Mathew 15 - 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

When makign the choice between health and theft he said that avoiding theft was more important than health. If one truly believes in salvation and eternal life, this makes perfect sense. If one believes earthly death is total death, then this may not make sense.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s figure time because if he named every basic need it would on forever. A roof and a full belly is enough to get the point. A bathtub, heat, and lights in your home are assumed and need not beining mentioned. As for intellegence. I know a 10 yearold next door to me who can read between the lines with no trouble, it’s very sad when an adult can’t do that. The statement wasn’t as explicit as it was just out of frustration. I know what he is saying. I just lost my home to foreclosure partly due to my wife’s health problems, But hey don’t let that interupt you counting your money.

So if it was not intended to be a finite list he should have stated such. And, if it is not a finite list where does the list end, are my golf clubs a surplus? How about my phone? or clothes? If it were not a finite list it is as I originally proposed a judgement.

 

[royal_archer]

It is. “Health care” isn’t a form of wealth. It isn’t something that you own. It is, as its name implies, care that humans give each other. Having savings that will allow you to pay a doctor to take care of you if you get sick *is, *strictly speaking, surplus. If I give my surplus to you when you are sick, and you give yours to me when I am sick, then we all get along fine. I don’t mean of course that society should function like that. There is nothing wrong with having a surplus. What is wrong is treating your surplus as if it belongs to you absolutely and as if having some of it taken to pay the people who take care of the sick is some kind of horrific wrong.

Edwin

So if I am sick and need an asprin, but don’t ahve any money I have the right to go to the pharmacy and just steal it?

If they have addequate security inside preventing me from doing that, can I rightfully wait outside for a little old lady to walk by, steal her purse, and then go in an procure the asprin?

That is what it sounds like you are saying.

 

[royal_archer]

Then you sentence people in my situation to death.

At least with the supposed ‘death panels’ this would be a controlled death, instead of living my entire, extremely shortened, life in debt and sickness that I can never even begin to comprehend on how to remove.

What you I am saying is that we must take on other avenues to get you the care you need.

I recently tried to post a thread discussing ideas to improve health care that were not based on taking from others. That thread is not getting much attention. It seems like the real goal is not to improve health care options for the needy but instead some are using the health care need to rationalize a desire to redistribute wealth.

 

[royal_archer]

She happens to be near death becuase our health system is not taking care of herm she is homeless because it has drained her of money. So she is supposed to embraced the very thing that has made her homeless and days numbered? How illogical! Our current health care system is a failure, and something different needs to be given a try. It hasnt been totally hammered out what national healthcare will be. REmber there are blue Dog Democrats who arent thrilled with some parts of the package. By way the way Pathia’s condition is treatable, but for money no one can afford yet someone who is homeless… Since all you "conservatives can’t come uo with a solution to her problem your self, don’t deny her ,her solutons, dont expect her imagaination to comeup with the solution yours can’t comeup with.

“Pathia’s condition is treatable, but for money no one can afford” If the cost is so high that no one can afford it then you are inviting the general discussion of do we attempt to keep everyone alive as long as possible at all costs? Some things in life are more important than life. We are only on this earth a very small portion of our lives and this time we are given has many beautiful opportunities. Why waste those opportunities trying to cling on to extra years. It is almost like being on a vacation on a beautiful island and spending your entire time in the airport trying to arrange a later departure flight.

 

[royal_archer]

The present system works for around 85% of the population, but some folks, rather than fixing the system so that it works better for the other 15%, would trash the entire system.

Yes, there are hard cases, such as Pathia’s.

[Although I’m thinking we are not getting the whole story. Pathia has been disowned, apparently. Pathia does get some health care via the emergency room/bankruptcy route.]

But to say that the present system must be thrown out and replaced by a system that we know from the get-go is poor, at best.

To quote some anonymous person at one of the town hall meetings:

Social Security is broke.

Medicare is broke.

Medicaid is broke.

The post office is broke.

Fannie Mae is broke.

Freddie Mac is broke.

Cash for Clunkers is broke.

The government controls everything and screws it up. Government is the REASON we are in so much trouble.

And now you want the government to take over health care; what do you take us for.

Let us run our own lives.

Get the government off our backs.

Let us have the private sector compete interstate without mandates and we can have better, cheaper, faster health care than any government bureaucracy can possibly provide.

If I want to use government bureaucratic health care, I can always visit my nearest Indian reservation. There are probably around 500 of them.

[Now there’s an idea !!! We already have government health care. Those legislators in favor of nationalized health care should just order everyone to report to their nearest Indian reservation.’

You neglected to p oint out that many of the problems with our current medical system were caused by government.
[/quote]

 

[royal_archer]

I jsut spoke to my american soon to be brother-in-law and he said that friends of his (their daughter really) got AIDS And the insurance company dropped her and the WHOLE FAMILY from coverage. In other words, they were kicked to the curb! Because it would way to costly to cover the whole family!

Ther are two options here 1 we are not getting the full story or 2. they have grounds for a lawsuit.

Have they filed the court papers?

 

[fultonfish]

You neglected to p oint out that many of the problems with our current medical system were caused by government.

Thank you for the proposed edit.

I accept your suggestion and will include it the next time I post that litany of government programs that are broke.

Ponzi Schemes forever.

With government rampant.

 

[aspawloski4th]

“Pathia’s condition is treatable, but for money no one can afford” If the cost is so high that no one can afford it then you are inviting the general discussion of do we attempt to keep everyone alive as long as possible at all costs? Some things in life are more important than life. We are only on this earth a very small portion of our lives and this time we are given has many beautiful opportunities. Why waste those opportunities trying to cling on to extra years. It is almost like being on a vacation on a beautiful island and spending your entire time in the airport trying to arrange a later departure flight.

We are not talking keeping someone by physically exordinary means, the onlything exprdinary in this sense is the money involved. Please discuss medical erthic with me. My grandmother was a nurse on a hospital floor with all types of basket cases, some that were curble and some not, and some where maybe the cure was worse than the disease. If it were not for my grandmother’s altzheimers Id be having her bang some heads together on this thread, Hmm theres a tiny chance I might. Even if Pathia’s life is maybe unsavable, lets the lady dies in the least amount of pain possible!!! For heaven’s sake! Quite frankly Roayal Archer you are begining to sound like my mother to me who doen’s believe in heart transplants because she thinks it interferes with God’s right to call a person home. I know what! so don’t hurt some’s pocket book, and we don’t have income brackets determining who gets to live and who doesn’t, why don’t we get rid of everything medical altogether then everyone will treated equil and a few filthy rich won’t have their dainty little pocket books hurt