Whatever. I’m out of the thread anyway.
You have something else to say to me, moderator man, say it in a PM.
I am a Christian.
Listen, if you want to develop secular policy by relying on Christian concepts, let’s start.
But don’t point to Christian views solely when they benefit you, and reject them when you don’t like them. You cannot come to Christ’s teaching a la carte, or demand that his followers employ them only when it suits you.
So let’s either dispense with this canard or start getting together a petition to change the language of US Constitution, Amend. I.
Then I’d be in favor of changing that law.
None of the options above seem unreasonable to me.
My comments about the six-month exclusion period mandated by HIPPA seem to have gone completely unread, by the way. Did you have any response to them?
You need a constititutional amendment to follow the tenets of your own religion?
No, we need a Constitutional amendment to compel the government to follow them.
I’d be against it, myself, but apparently tagos disagrees.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s always interesting to see how important the framing of an issue is to the influencing of opinion. The simplification of the health care debate in this manner serves absolutely no purpose.
Got a house? The government is subsidizing your mortgage interest and/or property tax payments. Got a second house? The government subsidizes that, too. Did you go to a public university? Subsidized by taxpayers again. Did you get government student loans for your education? Subsidized by the government. Looks like sucking at the government teat is just fine and dandy as long as it’s the fat cats doing the sucking.
I don’t support any of those things, even though I benefit from some of them. I would happily vote against them, if put to the ballot.
Looks like it’s not.
I personally follow the tenets of my religion. I donate both time and money to charitable causes. My religion commands me to feed the hungry. It does nto command me to make others feed the hungry. So it’s proper for me to work to do it – not proper for me to get it done by passing a law in secular society forcing everyone to feed the hungry.
I don’t point to my religious beliefs when arguing for the adoption of secular policy. Nor should you point to my religious beliefs (or your own) when arguing for the adoption of secular policy.
I’m not in favor of any of those things.
tagos said no such thing. He didn’t mention the first amendment or say anything about basing secular policies on Christian concepts at all.
You may not be in favor of it but I maintain that the government subsidizes the rich a whole lot more than it subsidizes the poor.
OK. Even if true, how is that relevant? We need to balance the scales by also subsidizing the poor? How about balancing the scales by not subsidizing, period?
Actually, yes he did.
Which is a problem. If you think Christ ever said something like “Thou shalt support big government”, that is. For those who read Matthew 17:24-27, it is a bit more ambiguous.
Regards,
Shodan
Probably. Which is one of the problems with subsidies. Guess who votes more, has more influence, and more at stake for the subsidies? And that’s why many people have a principled opposition to the Health Care bill in Congress. As Bill Maher said, it looks like a giant blow-job for the Insurance companies.
It’s relevant because I read too many getting on their high horse and whining about how everyone should pick themselves up by their bootstraps like they claim to have done themselves. There’s a reason why there aren’t any libertarian governments- it just doesn’t work. We’re a better society because of public schools and universities and tax benefits for home ownership. We’ll be a better society if all of us have access to health care.
I have no problem with subsidizing the poor to help them obtain Health Care. But when you start off with the assumption that Health Care is a right, you seem to end up with the “solution” being that everyone is mandated to buy HCI, and then the government tells us what has to be in that insurance. Let the market take care of the overwhelming majority of people who can afford HCIt, and help out those who are too poor to do so.
Still, the fucked-up system we have now is, IMO, an artifact of the crazy way we dole out HCI (through employers), and the way to fix that is not to prop up that system with more laws. Scrap it and start over.
Excellent post. Well said.
I think this bears repeating:
Yup, this is exactly the way my two-year-old son thinks. He’ll willfully put himself in situations where he can get hurt, simply because he is so damned determined to have his own little way. He only sees his own momentary needs, and can’t see the bigger picture.
IMO, a large majority of the U.S. public thinks a lot like my two-year-old. They think about only themselves and their own, and stubbornly refuse to see the bigger picture. They’re so damned determined to focus only on their own, momentary needs that the arguments for the benefits of having a healthy society as a whole (which pays off for individuals in the end) completely go over their heads. So, yeah, they get persuaded by the simplistic American mythos (which someone mentioned on the boards earlier) of the rugged individualist fending for himself. And then more people suffer. I wish America would grow the heck up.