Universal Health Care

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by Ron

You need to think again.

OK I'm thinking.

But I don't think you want to know what I'm thinking.

[trickledown]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

CH, you are the king of cut and paste. You don't answer direct questions and you have no hermanutical basis that has been proven to not be inconsistent, arbitrary, and unbiblical. You have no framework or set of presuppositions that hold up your philosophy. What you do have is a lot of bluster, the propensity not to listen, the extreme use of strawmen, and the ability not to answer questions. It makes it very difficult to converse with you in a meaningful way...if that is what you want.

Agreed. Chris seeks to highjack threads for his proliberal propoganda and seeks to avoid anything that might pen him down. He is very hard to converse with in that he chooses which questions he has answers for and ignores the rest while blasting you with his rhetoric.

Don't forget that he is a government worker who has had a personal experience with healthcare coverage that was lacking. He also sees the Canadian system as one that would have saved him personally from such a problem. He is a great advocate for big government which he feels would benefit him personally. If he was in private enterprise or had a higher economic status, he would probably be just as vocal about his self-interest in battling against higher taxes. He has been demeaning of private small businesses in several post all the while defending government growth. He is after all a government worker, a "minister" to the people.

It is like single mothers who do not produce, that feel they should get more from welfare. If it cost them nothing, why wouldn't the unscrupulous support more government growth?
People in this country are determined to bring the living standards for the lower class higher. The same lower class that is determined to produce less and less. Food nor healthcare nor a home is a God-given or constitutionally given right. Freedom of religion however is. If those that support themselves in the free market economy do not advocate for our freedoms, then those who take their living from the self supporters will choke our nation to a early death.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

Library of Congress' Respectfully Quoted writes, "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Ron

How does the rest of the world view you going into the Middle East?
As just another oppressor-period.

You guys may feel you are the World's cop, but that doesn't make it so.

Ron,
I recognize that if the average American were to be made to fully understand the ways in which our foreign policy is ACTUALLY put in to practice, they would be appalled. Our foreign policy does not represent our national heartbeat, and the deception of the people is a shame.

However, I would suggest that you think, truly stop and reflect, on what the world would be like if we did not intervene with the lawyers, guns, and money. Usually folks will grimace and begrudgingly admit that our efforts produce a stabilizing influence on the socioeconomic life of the world. Few reflect on what the opposite of stability truly means.

Unintended consequences isn't just an abstract concept. Some unintended consequences - like what happened in Cambodia after the U.S. fled Vietnam - are very real for some people.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by trickledown

Agreed. Chris seeks to highjack threads for his proliberal propoganda and seeks to avoid anything that might pen him down. . . . . He is after all a government worker, a "minister" to the people.

While your assessment and your implication might both be accurate, it is considered much better form to argue the ideas and not address personal aspects in a negative fashion. I realize you are just trying to point out on what side his bread's been buttered, but I would still urge caution.

If those that support themselves in the free market economy do not advocate for our freedoms, then those who take their living from the self supporters will choke our nation to a early death.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

Library of Congress' Respectfully Quoted writes, "Attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER, LORD WOODHOUSELEE. Unverified."

Perhaps not so surprisingly, I agree with these points.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Ferd

This is a great point. One of the main reasons, European countries and Canada have the $$$$ to spend on socialist health care scemes is because they dont have to spen $$$$ on Military. We do it for them.


Maybe they should start paying us, then we could afford it too.

Ferd,

I had never thought of this before- Great point.
So,If we didn't spend so much on our military on other countries you'd be okay with UHC??
What do you think of Dave's point? He thinks we should just worry about our borders and let the chips fall where they may.
we'd certainly have more money for other things wouldn't we?

Here is One of the reasons I feel the medical system needs overhauling.
My Sister in law has worked all of her life as a pharmicist. she paid all her taxes, and now she is in the hospital close to death but because her medical insurance has ran out, they want to send her to a convalecent home ALL THE WHILE the illegal immgrants and welfare recipients have unlimited resources and can stay in the hospital as long as the need to!!
as it stands it doesn't pay to do things the right way !

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

It's a bogus report. Our family shares a cottage on Charleston Lake in Outlet Ontario. We go up there every year and spend at least a week. We have good friends there and David and Terry, my uncle and aunt-in-law do quite a bit of business in Canada, not to mention works relating to their denominational church. I've personally been to Windsor, Toronto, Gananoque, Outlet, Kingston, and Ottowa. And seen facilities in Windsor, Toronto, Gananoque, Kingston. With my own eyes. With the many friends I have in Canada I've talked to them at length about this and they laugh hysterically at how Americas are so jealous they feel they have to lie to tear down the superior Canadian system. It's all lies and propaganda...I've seen it personally. I was there. Many Canadians here on this forum can testify that everything you just posted isn't typical of the Canadian system.

No, it's not a "bogus" report. And no, socialized medical plans do not increase efficiencies. It seems from your incredibly verbose responses that follow that someone's really hit a nerve here with your Obamamania.

Chris, flooding this forum with Leftist propaganda will probably be a waste of time for you - just an observation. I'm glad that you found something that makes you happy and I hope Obama can deliver the goods for you. However, the average wait for treatment in Canadian emergency rooms is 4 hours. That's documented. It doesn't mean that Canadians are bad people or that their doctors "don't care." It's just a fact of government services. I have a friend who is a doctor in Canada. Her stories give me the willies.

You may wish to pretend that the evils of America justify your new love affair, but don't worry- I'll still be your friend when the libs have let you down. And let you down they will; been there, done that and I've already thrown out the t-shirt.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Ferd

This is a great point. One of the main reasons, European countries and Canada have the $$$$ to spend on socialist health care scemes is because they dont have to spen $$$$ on Military. We do it for them.


Maybe they should start paying us, then we could afford it too.

The wealth of Europe is kind of complex. The U.K. was brankrupt in the 1970's until two things happened: North Sea Oil and Margaret Thatcher.

The Queen of Norway administers a "mutual fund" with cash assets in excess of 1.5 trillion dollars. That's "cash," not the Crown Jewels. The money belongs to the people of Norway and is invested around the world - much of it in the U.S. economy. When the U.S. economy slows, the pensioners of Norway (that is, the entire native population of Norway) shudder. This fund has been built up through selling North Sea oil to the Germans and Swedes.

Canada is one of the leading suppliers of oil to the United States and has the second largest reserve of oil in the world. Also, Canadian manufacturing has literally exploded after the U.S. auto unions drove the industry out of Detroit.

You can imagine how shaky these financial houses appear to be. Huge governement social programs have been built upon financial assets that are tied to the health of the US economy. If we ever hit the skids, their assets would diminish rapidly.

Tired of breeding with each other, Canadians and Europeans have begun to import human beings in massive numbers, just to keep population levels nearly even. In the U.K. there has been substantial growth in population- all of it fed by immigration.

The Canadians and Europeans are dying out. They will soon be gone. Their "cash" assets will be the familar green US dollar. That dollar will be worth exactly what Americans say it's worth. Meanwhile, the Canadians and Europeans will have hordes of angry Muslims who really won't understand why they should have to pay for the aged white people loitering about.

Not having children really isn't much of a "plan" for the future.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by scotty

No thinking neccesary, facts have proved it , the surge is working.

You're missing it. Of course the surge is working. It's a surge of armed soldiers. The surge has decreased the number of attacks...but the stability of the Iraqi government is virtually nil. What the surge's success shows in light of the unstable Iraqi democratic government is that it's a house of cards ready to fall should we step away. Bro...that's not "mission accomplished". If after the surge we saw a decrease in violence and the Iraqi government became strong with a unified Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd coalition with a strong government infrastructure and a capable military to fight off terrorists, I'd agree with you. Iraq is about to fall apart politically, and if it does we'll not only have insurgents to deal with...but warring factions fragmenting the country.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by scotty

Are you kidding me, so all the statitics coming out of Iraqi is propaganda?!?! Even when the news agencies that are against the war report the same?!?!? I am still in touch with friends there.
Sorry Brother, your just highly opinionated, but you have no facts.

Bro...who do you know there?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Trickledown made some excellent points that Christopher Hall ignored:



I know that you have asked me to propose a workable solution instead of popping off from the sidelines with a long list of reasons why somebody else's proposal WON'T work. And that is exactly how I operate in the business world. However, I am not running for office, so my proposal is still in its draft phase. Maybe I'll get something together later.

You've also asked me for some more personal anecdotes and such. However, I am arguing from a set of principles, not appealing to sentiment.



I can't emphasize this enough. The people that you're going to climb into bed with, politically speaking, in supporting national health care are going to turn around and cut your "Christian" throat just as soon as you've outlived your usefulness to their plans. Most people promoting national health care are doing so out of a true collectivist mindset or class envy. You "social gospel" people are a rarity. The business of group rights cuts both ways, and will eventually work against anybody who is not a committed secularist.

The communist manifesto has a term and a plan for people who can be convinced to cooperate with various steps of the master plan without being aware of the full implications or even the existence of the master plan itself. If you aren't familiar with it, suffice it to say that it is neither complimentary nor a term of endearment.

At the root, the socialist plan is to change the way Americans view themselves in terms of their rights, responsibilities, and most of all, their capabilities. The new paradigm will create an elite ruling class that treats the little people as children. It will include practices that will be counter to all kinds of Christian principles, but it will be too late for you to voice your opposition or affect change. The worst thing about it, from a Christian perspective, is that people will be harder to win to Christ when they've been raised from childhood to not take accountability for their own actions.

Fear and paranoia. We have millions of individuals who, like the elderly, can't afford both food and the medication they need. We also have thousands dying from treatable diseases every year because they don't have insurance or their insurance denies them coverage. And you offer me a "philosophical" reason why it's all just fine with you. Get some heart.