Change of heart on socialized medicine

[Shoshana]

Not a true comparison. Paul is talking about those who CHOOSE to be idle, where the poster you are replying to is talking about someone forced into indleness.There is no comparison.

Espceially delibitated by disease, cancer, mental illness, etc etc etc. Some of us fall into any of these categories at one point in our life. But there are those who fall into it ALL their lives. Goodness me, can’t this be seen???

 

[Shoshana]

to punnish them implies that I am taking away something that is rightfully theirs. The only ones being punnished are those who are working.

A third of the population is on public assistance. It is clear to me that the vast majority of them are taking advantage of the system.

Once again I am not going to defend abuses by politicians. However after giving them as an example of corruption, why do you feel they are capable of handling health care in an honnest manner?

Why give away billions to the idle at the expense of teh few truly needy I can help directly?

The few truly needy? Exactly what world do you live in?

 

[royal_archer]

Not a true comparison. Paul is talking about those who CHOOSE to be idle, where the poster you are replying to is talking about someone forced into indleness.There is no comparison.

Many years ago I was young and idealistic and had the opportunity to hire several people. I went straight to the unemployment office and asked for several people. The few that bothered to show up did not want the job, they just wanted to attend an interview so they could get their “bennefits” extended.

I have also met a lot of truly needy in my community. I would rather help them out than the generic mass of dependents who contain many who choose to be idle.

 

[royal_archer]

The few truly needy? Exactly what world do you live in?

reread my post I said the few that I can help directly. While there may be many around the country, I cna do my part with those in my corner of the world.

 

[royal_archer]

Espceially delibitated by disease, cancer, mental illness, etc etc etc. Some of us fall into any of these categories at one point in our life. But there are those who fall into it ALL their lives. Goodness me, can’t this be seen???

It can be seen locally. That is where we have to focus our energy, not on promoting a big government program that facilitates bad behavior.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Many years ago I was young and idealistic and had the opportunity to hire several people. I went straight to the unemployment office and asked for several people. The few that bothered to show up did not want the job, they just wanted to attend an interview so they could get their “bennefits” extended.

I have also met a lot of truly needy in my community. I would rather help them out than the generic mass of dependents who contain many who choose to be idle.

Well one person is a drop in the bucket. While what you are doing is good. in the long run drops in buckets don’t make any difference.

 

[Contarini]

Health care is the “good” funding the health care through oppressive means is the “evil”

But this begs the question. What are oppressive means? If “oppressive” means “contrary to human dignity,” then that is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. But if “oppressive” means “more restrictive of liberty than is usually a good idea” or “creating cumbersome bureaucracy” or “giving government more power than is generally wise” then certainly such actions may be justified in certain circumstances.

But if we nationalize healthcare we will destroy the private medical industry.

Speculation, not fact. There is a private medical industry in Britain even though healthcare is nationalized.

Furthermore, my point is that if you took abortion out from under that “umbrella” (assuming that it’s put there in the first place), a private industry (I won’t dignify it with the term “medical”) would spring up pretty quick.

The “good” would be reducing crime. The “evil” would be to deny them basic human dignity.

Exactly. And that evil can never be justified.

Edwin

 

[aspawloski4th]

Well one person is a drop in the bucket. While what you are doing is good. in the long run drops in buckets don’t make any difference.

My wife has to be “idle” she is on disability. For her to work a job again they have to accept she is going to be absent 1/4 of the time either due to extreme pain from either of the 2 types of arthraitis she has, or being sick because one of her very neccesary medications supresses the immune system, thus her getting sick easy. Her psoriatic arthraitis is an auto immune disease. She is also diebetic, when her blood sugar crashes is crashes lightning fast. my taking 2 minutes to get her some candy for a crash onetime was almost not quick enough because she almost passed out on me. You had better not be applying that reading to the likes of her.

 

[Contarini]

All who support socialized medicine as one of a myriad of leftist issue, let’s start with Obama.

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.).

Totalitarianism is complete control. However even in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Socialist Republic people did have some control over their own lives. Hence Totalitarianism is not an absolute.

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.

And for further clarification it is not the provision of health care it is the violation of human rights in order to secure the resources necessary to provide the health care.

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

The left wants to violate human rights to achieve something accepted as good.

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.

By the way I had similar discussion with people who supported human rights violations by Bush such as unwarranted wire taps. In those discussions I asked the question of how the right wingers would feel if the Clintons had access to the powers Bush was seeking.

Good!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And don’t people who earn money matter?

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.

You are basing the arguement on an unsupported assertion. If someone is bleeding I will take my shirt off and wrap the wound if there is nothing else to use.

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

In our society anyone can go to an emergency room with such and emergency and it will be taken care of.

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.

The issue is that many choose a lifestyle and make personal decisions that create burdens for others.

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.

Also keep in mind that Americans give billions to charity and that is more than enough to help those truly in need.

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

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Society as charity, yes. Society as government agents taking from the defenseless, no.

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

 

[Contarini]

How can you say what is surplus for another?

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

 

[Contarini]

Have you heard of the Ten Commandments? Though shall not steal. Though shall not covet.

“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

 

[Contarini]

157 posts so far and still no one has given me a compelling reason to say that the ends justify the means. when I opened the thread I didn’t believe they did but I was willing to be open minded and put it up for discussion.

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

 

[TEPO]

You know what? Who here even knows what the Nationalized Healthcare plan holds for us? None of you do --yet you are so eager to pass it… That is illogical.

You dont care if abortion is included, you dont care what kind of tax increase people will face, you dont know if there is another plan, you dont know if prescriptions are included, you only assume that it is exactly the same as what the other countries have.

I’m forced to believe that nobody cares what the plan holds. You are just Politicians with an agenda.

 

[Shoshana]

You know what? Who here even knows what the Nationalized Healthcare plan holds for us? None of you do --yet you are so eager to pass it… That is illogical.

You dont care if abortion is included, you dont care what kind of tax increase people will face, you dont know if there is another plan, you dont know if prescriptions are included, you only assume that it is exactly the same as what the other countries have.

I’m forced to believe that nobody cares what the plan holds. You are just Politicians with an agenda.

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

 

[Contarini]

You know what? Who here even knows what the Nationalized Healthcare plan holds for us? None of you do --yet you are so eager to pass it.

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

 

[rtconstant]

You know what? Who here even knows what the Nationalized Healthcare plan holds for us? None of you do --yet you are so eager to pass it… That is illogical.

Actually no one here to my knowledge has espoused Obama’s plan one way or the other. We’re discussing the merits of socialized medicine in general.

You dont care if abortion is included,

Assumption on your part. No public funds are allowed, but premiums paid by companies and individuals could be used to fund them. So essentially if you’re already paying into companies or plans that cover abortion then that money can theoretically still be used to fund them. This part of the bill needs to be adjusted so that it is explicitly forbidden.

you dont care what kind of tax increase people will face,

Assumption on your part. if memory serves the taxes will focus on those making over 350k, to the tune of a 1.2% increase. There are also corporate taxes, but I assumed you were referencing individual citizens.

you dont know if there is another plan,

Assumption on your part. There are lots of plans out there, I’m sure many will agree that as long as all citizens are covered we’d be willing to look at any plan. There are many ways to approach the issue. To be honest I think the Obama plan isn’t “public” enough. Others obviously disagree.

you dont know if prescriptions are included,

Prescriptions along with mental health are part of the minimum requirement package.

you only assume that it is exactly the same as what the other countries have.

Assumption on your part. Its really not a mimic of the other nations at all. Which kind of bothers me since I’d prefer to follow a more tested model.

I’m forced to believe that nobody cares what the plan holds. You are just Politicians with an agenda.

Not sure why you feel forced to believe that.

 

[aspawloski4th]

You know what? Who here even knows what the Nationalized Healthcare plan holds for us? None of you do --yet you are so eager to pass it… That is illogical.

You dont care if abortion is included, you dont care what kind of tax increase people will face, you dont know if there is another plan, you dont know if prescriptions are included, you only assume that it is exactly the same as what the other countries have.

I’m forced to believe that nobody cares what the plan holds. You are just Politicians with an agenda.

Put it this way.Based on what I have seen with my 20/15 vision eyes right in front of me time and time again. What we have now is a total failure and deserves at best an F- grade. Of course I’m going to support trying something else. As for politicians with an agenda, everyone has an agenda if they are a human being!

 

[TEPO]

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.