Conquer Club

lgoasklucyl wrote:I love when individuals run around preaching religion, yet bitch left and right about taking a few extra dollars out of their paycheck to help others.

Do you really think 'insert 'x' religious martyr/zealot/idol here' would be adamantly opposed to a system that is designed to help individuals who cannot help themselves?

Don't beat around the bush with 'they can help themselves' or 'wah wah but I work hard for that money', because rest assured any 'devout' religious individual wouldn't sit there and complain about improving the lives of others.

Fucking organized religion and the hypocrisy it has become.

I didn't become an atheist because of a lack of belief in a higher power, I became an atheist because of people like YOU, PopeBen, who are billboards for the fact that religion is purely a self-righteous mask of bullshit that the current era of individuals who partake in its system and 'defend' it merely pick and choose to practice, follow, and believe in what they will with regards to their particular ideology and throw out the rest if it inconveniences them.

So not wanting to give more money to the government makes me a hypocrite? It's amazing how you give absolutely no credit to all the money people of faith give to the poor and the church run hospitals around the world that give free healthcare to the poor. Your response is to just give more to anyone who wants to take it and don't ask questions. Since your so giving lets take 100% of your money and give it to someone else if your so concerned. Is their a problem with 100%? How bought 80%? Where do you draw the line if you are so giving? Just keep bantering about how you decided to reject God because of someone else instead of your own free will.

It's always someone else's fault for not doing more to help the poor but no credit is given for what is done. What have your perfect atheist groups done in comparison? I was a Christian only because I believe in God but now it's solidified by people like you that I am not an atheist. Your foul mouth and utter disrespect is a clear indication of your view of the world.

PopeBenXVI wrote:
Yes we do have better treatment thats why everyone comes to the U.S. for it. Whether or not some people take advantage of it for the common cold - you can often get in right away for treatment when Socialized counties you often wait days or weeks and care is rationed even in extreme cases of need which does not make them "happier".

You keep saying this, but it just is not true. Furthermore, as I said people here DO have to wait weeks and weeks for care if you are not one of the lucky ones to have the right insurance and live in the right area, both.

PopeBenXVI wrote: Wanting Obama to provide you with new glasses does not mean you tax everyone else to do it. I could use a new knee but I would never expect government to provide it on the backs of other workers. You still have not shown that the government has a track record of being able to pull this off. They are already in the healthcare business and it's not going well.

Reread what I wrote and quite inventing garbage.

The point is that a national system would be BETTER and CHEAPER. People right now cannot afford care, people WITH INSURANCE AND JOBS.

I went into some of the biggest reasons earlier. No where did I say anything about Obama or you or anyone else buying me glasses. In fact, if I were poor, you would be buying them for me under our current system. I want insurance that will cover ALL medical necessities and not just pick and choose in nonsensical ways.

PopeBenXVI wrote:So not wanting to give more money to the government makes me a hypocrite? It's amazing how you give absolutely no credit to all the money people of faith give to the poor and the church run hospitals around the world that give free healthcare to the poor. Your response is to just give more to anyone who wants to take it and don't ask questions. Since your so giving lets take 100% of your money and give it to someone else if your so concerned. Is their a problem with 100%? How bought 80%? Where do you draw the line if you are so giving? Just keep bantering about how you decided to reject God because of someone else instead of your own free will.

It's always someone else's fault for not doing more to help the poor but no credit is given for what is done. What have your perfect atheist groups done in comparison? I was a Christian only because I believe in God but now it's solidified by people like you that I am not an atheist. Your foul mouth and utter disrespect is a clear indication of your view of the world.

First off, I'm not religious, so mocking the amount of money doesn't make a difference to me. I DO devote my life to helping less fortunate individuals by having chosen a career path in CPS.

Secondly, don't mock atheists because they haven't 'done anything as a group'. If the atheists had a set of beliefs or an individual who's 'life they were supposed to follow in the foot-steps up', yet the continued to run around preaching the polar opposite of what that individual would preach you may have a valid argument, but, alas, they do not. That, my friend, is all you.

And I'm not saying ANYTHING about what religious organizations do NOT do for poorer individuals, as I know very well the many services and donations that do go through churches through having been raised in a religious family, having a girlfriend with a very religious father and step-mother, and through what I've seen at CPS. That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the fact that you go, very blatantly, in the opposite way your religious teaching tell you to.

My view of the world was caused by the hypocrisy of organized religion. I respect what it does for some individuals who need their little crutch, but when it comes to individuals like you who merely exploit it and use it for their own good rather than practicing it to the full extent it's disgusting. If religious individuals ever want to be taken seriously in debates when they are defending their faith, they shouldn't openly reject the preachings of it in other debates.

While on its face, it's tempting to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the religious not wanting universal healthcare, what you fail to realize is that the religious who are against such things are against universal government run and controlled healthcare. What you also fail to realize, which PopeBen has elucidated, is that there are many, many religious-run hospitals in the United States, which run their hospitals at a substantial loss on a yearly basis. Further, I know that the Catholic church does a lot for the poor and needy relative to healthcare.

In sum, you are both a little naive and a little ridiculous in your assertion of hypocrisy on the religious.

And to further stir the pot - what happens when universal healthcare is a mandate and the church-run hospitals are required to accept money from the federal government? Will there be court cases on whether the church-run hospitals, since it is partially a government-run institution, be required to take down the crosses and/or stars of david?

lgoasklucyl wrote:

PopeBenXVI wrote:So not wanting to give more money to the government makes me a hypocrite? It's amazing how you give absolutely no credit to all the money people of faith give to the poor and the church run hospitals around the world that give free healthcare to the poor. Your response is to just give more to anyone who wants to take it and don't ask questions. Since your so giving lets take 100% of your money and give it to someone else if your so concerned. Is their a problem with 100%? How bought 80%? Where do you draw the line if you are so giving? Just keep bantering about how you decided to reject God because of someone else instead of your own free will.

It's always someone else's fault for not doing more to help the poor but no credit is given for what is done. What have your perfect atheist groups done in comparison? I was a Christian only because I believe in God but now it's solidified by people like you that I am not an atheist. Your foul mouth and utter disrespect is a clear indication of your view of the world.

First off, I'm not religious, so mocking the amount of money doesn't make a difference to me. I DO devote my life to helping less fortunate individuals by having chosen a career path in CPS.

Secondly, don't mock atheists because they haven't 'done anything as a group'. If the atheists had a set of beliefs or an individual who's 'life they were supposed to follow in the foot-steps up', yet the continued to run around preaching the polar opposite of what that individual would preach you may have a valid argument, but, alas, they do not. That, my friend, is all you.

And I'm not saying ANYTHING about what religious organizations do NOT do for poorer individuals, as I know very well the many services and donations that do go through churches through having been raised in a religious family, having a girlfriend with a very religious father and step-mother, and through what I've seen at CPS. That is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the fact that you go, very blatantly, in the opposite way your religious teaching tell you to.

My view of the world was caused by the hypocrisy of organized religion. I respect what it does for some individuals who need their little crutch, but when it comes to individuals like you who merely exploit it and use it for their own good rather than practicing it to the full extent it's disgusting. If religious individuals ever want to be taken seriously in debates when they are defending their faith, they shouldn't openly reject the preachings of it in other debates.

It's amazing how you point the finger at me as if you know how much I give to charity both in time and money. I am glad YOU have established I don't do enough without even knowing anything. I give according to my own free will and good nature to help others but I opposes government mandates on people to give to what the government sees as fit.

thegreekdog wrote:While on its face, it's tempting to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the religious not wanting universal healthcare, what you fail to realize is that the religious who are against such things are against universal government run and controlled healthcare. What you also fail to realize, which PopeBen has elucidated, is that there are many, many religious-run hospitals in the United States, which run their hospitals at a substantial loss on a yearly basis. Further, I know that the Catholic church does a lot for the poor and needy relative to healthcare.

In sum, you are both a little naive and a little ridiculous in your assertion of hypocrisy on the religious.

And to further stir the pot - what happens when universal healthcare is a mandate and the church-run hospitals are required to accept money from the federal government? Will there be court cases on whether the church-run hospitals, since it is partially a government-run institution, be required to take down the crosses and/or stars of david?

Worse

thegreekdog wrote:

And to further stir the pot - what happens when universal healthcare is a mandate and the church-run hospitals are required to accept money from the federal government? Will there be court cases on whether the church-run hospitals, since it is partially a government-run institution, be required to take down the crosses and/or stars of david?

First, almost all do already take federal funds.. so its not the future, its the present.

Second, this gets into the difference between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. That's a whole other kettle of worms that I don't think you want to get into in this particular thread (?).

Finally, to bring up the "elephant" here, federal funding can mean some doctors are required to do things against their personnal religious beliefs. If a Jehovah's Witness is a doctor in the emergency room, should he have the right to refuse to administer blood to patients? NO. Should a Christian Scientist be allowed to deny patients anything but naturalistic health care? Of course not. When you choose to practice medicine, you choose to follow the dictates of your profession. On the other side, some doctors might well believe in Euthanasia, but they, too are proscribed.

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, almost all do already take federal funds.. so its not the future, its the present.

They do? Can you explain please?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Finally, to bring up the "elephant" here, federal funding can mean some doctors are required to do things against their personnal religious beliefs. If a Jehovah's Witness is a doctor in the emergency room, should he have the right to refuse to administer blood to patients? NO. Should a Christian Scientist be allowed to deny patients anything but naturalistic health care? Of course not. When you choose to practice medicine, you choose to follow the dictates of your profession. On the other side, some doctors might well believe in Euthanasia, but they, too are proscribed.

This is a different elephant that has little to do with my point. But I'll defer to not discussing the potential religious implication of universal healthcare in this thread.

... Two questions:

... If I were to go to say... I dunno, ... Sweden. Now, I just slipped in past passport control and all that, I just didn't want to deal with it. I jumped off a boat and swam to shore... and became seriously ill as a result of the freezing cold water, along with the TB I had before I ever showed up. Could I go to a Swedish hospital and be treated without any insurance and no legal right to be in country? I ask, as many European nations seem to be rather open about such issues and I wish to make comparisons to illegal aliens in the US seeking treatment at hospitals (as they constitute a portion of the "uninsured Americans").

... Now, government mandated single-payer health care... If we go down this road can I get some relief on my automobile insurance from the Fed? How about my homeowners' insurance? It makes sense that I certainly should, does it not? For that matter why doesn't the company I work for have to provide auto insurance? I have to drive to work. This is an injustice if ever there was one.

...

Nobunaga wrote:

... Now, government mandated single-payer health care... If we go down this road can I get some relief on my automobile insurance from the Fed? How about my homeowners' insurance? It makes sense that I certainly should, does it not? For that matter why doesn't the company I work for have to provide auto insurance? I have to drive to work, do I not? This is an injustice if ever there was one.

...

Be real.

You have almost full control over where you live, the type of house in which you live, etc. You have almost no control over the medical procedures you will need. ( a few exceptions, yes, but not much) Even when there are treatment options, not all may be equally available. Driving is definitely not a necessity for most people. (those in some rural areas, certain service, people, etc.. but not the vast majority of americans. We just like our cars).

Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

Because you can afford auto insurance?

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

The basic reason is that auto insurance is inherently profitable. Most people don't get in wrecks. Most people will, eventually get sick and even die.

This is the problem with private insurace. They make money off the healthy and then drop you when you get sick or use up your "life time limits". So, the deck is stacked so that the insurance company WILL make money.

That is on top of other issues, like the difference between covering 10,000,000 different medical procedures and options versus just going and getting your car fixed.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, almost all do already take federal funds.. so its not the future, its the present.

They do? Can you explain please?

Meant to answer this earlier.

You will be hard-pressed to find a hospital that does not accept either Medicaid, Medicare or Veterans Benefits. They exist, but are very rare and mostly deal with specialty care.

You won't find true emergency rooms that don't.

Snorri1234 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

Because you can afford auto insurance?

I, thegreekdog, can afford life insurance. The two illegal immigrants driving a truck and killing a woman in my neighborhood at 3 AM could not afford auto insurance. Now the woman's family will not receive reparations in any way for her death. Incidentally, one of the two illegal immigrants was rushed to the hospital, presumably to receive free medical care (or perhaps he had insurance). Talk about a f8cked up system.

Disclaimer - This is not an indictment on illegal immigrants; it is merely an analogy. I support all peoples' right to come to the US, legal or illegal.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, almost all do already take federal funds.. so its not the future, its the present.

They do? Can you explain please?

Meant to answer this earlier.

You will be hard-pressed to find a hospital that does not accept either Medicaid, Medicare or Veterans Benefits. They exist, but are very rare and mostly deal with specialty care.

You won't find true emergency rooms that don't.

I thought that is what you meant. Receiving funds from Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran's insurance is not the same as a universal healthcare system. But, I'm not really concerned about this to be honest. It was a false issue I raised because I wanted to see if anyone would get fired up about it.

thegreekdog wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

Because you can live without a car, theoretically, and in fact I think we should have policies in place to disincentivize driving. You can't live without healthcare! Healthcare is a necesary public insurance. Gov-provided auto insurance would be interesting, but it would be gov paying for useful goods instead of vital services. Which would probably still be better than Star Wars.

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

Because you can live without a car, theoretically, and in fact I think we should have policies in place to disincentivize driving. You can't live without healthcare! Healthcare is a necesary public insurance. Gov-provided auto insurance would be interesting, but it would be gov paying for useful goods instead of vital services. Which would probably still be better than Star Wars.

I agree on Star Wars (the policy, not the movie... if we're talking about the movie, I disagree).

You can live without healthcare. I lived without healthcare from age 18 to age 27. I went to the hospital not once. I did not go to the dentist. I purchased no legal pharmaceuticals other than tylenol. But, yes, I take your point... that's why my analogy is not a good one.

spurgistan wrote:Gov-provided auto insurance would be interesting, but it would be gov paying for useful goods instead of vital services. Which would probably still be better than Star Wars.

Hey! Where would the world be without Chewbacca and the Ewoks?

thegreekdog wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Weirdly enough, auto insurance is mandated by law (if you choose to drive). As an analogy (to get torn apart) - I need to have a job to make enough money to purchase food, clothing, et. al. Therefore, I get a job. However, I need to drive to work, so I get a car. So, in order to live, I need a car. Therefore, why shouldn't I get state-sponsored auto insurance (especially when driving without auto insurance is against the law)?

Because you can live without a car, theoretically, and in fact I think we should have policies in place to disincentivize driving. You can't live without healthcare! Healthcare is a necesary public insurance. Gov-provided auto insurance would be interesting, but it would be gov paying for useful goods instead of vital services. Which would probably still be better than Star Wars.

I agree on Star Wars (the policy, not the movie... if we're talking about the movie, I disagree).

Beat me to the punch...

thegreekdog wrote:[You can live without healthcare. I lived without healthcare from age 18 to age 27. I went to the hospital not once. I did not go to the dentist. I purchased no legal pharmaceuticals other than tylenol. But, yes, I take your point... that's why my analogy is not a good one.

I highlighted the significant part.

Also, did you know your dentist is the most likely person to know you are diabetic? This is not cost-effectiveness, it is gambling. You won. Many people do not.

Indeed - 18-27. Myself and most everyone I know could have gone without insurance at those ages.

The great thing is, since Obama we now can get a loan from a government run bank, by a car from a government run car company, and then insure it through a government run insurance company!! Soon we can get into an accident with that car and the government can decide whether or not we can be treated. If all goes well we will be completely dependent on the government for everything and we can relax and be taken care of. Yeah, they wont have too much control over our lives if every important facet of it goes through washington bureaucrats.

thegreekdog wrote:

I, thegreekdog, can afford life insurance. The two illegal immigrants driving a truck and killing a woman in my neighborhood at 3 AM could not afford auto insurance. Now the woman's family will not receive reparations in any way for her death. Incidentally, one of the two illegal immigrants was rushed to the hospital, presumably to receive free medical care (or perhaps he had insurance). Talk about a f8cked up system.

Disclaimer - This is not an indictment on illegal immigrants; it is merely an analogy. I support all peoples' right to come to the US, legal or illegal.

Sad, yes, but that is why there is unisured/underinsured motorist coverage, even when insurance is required by law.

Life insurance .. .is a whole other issue. Most people who need it don't have it.

Bottom line. For health care to make a profit, someone's care is cut. That has to happen anyways, simply because there just is a limit on the number of doctors, etc, particularly for certain specialities.

When its the CEO of a for profit company making those decisions, do you really and truly think its our health they have foremost in consideration?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Bottom line. For health care to make a profit, someone's care is cut. That has to happen anyways, simply because there just is a limit on the number of doctors, etc, particularly for certain specialities.

When its the CEO of a for profit company making those decisions, do you really and truly think its our health they have foremost in consideration?

Maybe your right, we should cut your healthcare treatment. If you get cancer but are older it really would not be cost effective to treat you for the common good as that is what other government run care does already.

Tell us player, if the program will be so good then why is there a provision for government politicians like Obama and congress etc to be excempt from the program? Shouldn't they be subjected to the same wonderful program we are? Obama also skirted the question yesterday from the doctor who asked him if someone in his family needed a special treatment and the government would not approve the treatment but he knew he could get that or another treatment would he go outside the government plan to get. His reponse was that many surgeries are not neccessary or whatever load of crap he said but did not answer a valid question! If he said yes then how can he justify the program? You know he would go outside the program to do it but we will not be able to.

Ben, here's the problem with trying to argue about these issues. There are two lines of thought, of which there are two (or maybe more) views on each:

Line of thought and view #1A - Universal healthcare is good
Line of thought and view #1B - Universal healthcare is bad

Line of thought and view #2A - President Obama's healthcare plan is good
Line of thought and view #2B - President Obama's healthcare plan is bad

Player and others are arguing Line of thought and view #1A. You and I are arguing Line of thought and view #2B. Erego, the argument is flawed unless we all get on one line of thought (either #1 or #2). I suspect #1 is better for people like Player because it makes you and I seem like jerks who hate old people and the sick.