Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:23 pm**

An old article I found.

Posted: **Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:14 pm**

RickD wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:23 pm An old article I found.

Silliness. There's no point debating whether socialism/collectivism or laissez-faire capitalism is the best path forward. It's a false dilemma. Unadulterated they're both terrible. Judiciously combined they can produce a just, stable, prosperous society.

Besides, nobody serious is calling for the former, and the latter is only supported by libertarians...like the Koch brothers...oh, [poop].

Meh, whatever, there's nothing for it.

Anyway...

Laissez-faire capitalism seems swell, but if you take it to it's logical conclusion you end up with a totalitarian nightmare. The smartest, strongest, and most ruthless get rich. Then they use their wealth to get richer. They shut down threatening innovation, collude to control industries and fix prices, and propagandize to distract from what they're doing. It's inevitable. That's just human nature. A corporation that isn't growing, diversifying, and absorbing the competition is going to wither away and get absorbed by somebody else. As a matter of fact, the dystopian nightmare is pretty much where we're headed right now. Inequality is at historically high levels and the gap is widening. Crony capitalists subvert our collective will to privatize their own gains and socialize their losses. They make bank, we pay for bailouts. It's a terrible system. We're literally being robbed daily, yet here you sit wringing your hands at the prospect of the robbers being taxed a bit more. Amazing.

Pure collective socialism seems...fair or something? In reality it's also awful. The government has too much control over the economy. Creativity is stifled, commerce suffers, production drops off, and before long we're all in line for toilet paper. All of us, that is, except our (secretly rich) comrades in the government, who live like fat cats. Eventually things get bad enough that the whole thing collapses, at which point the rich guys from the government steal everything and create a kleptocratic, totalitarian oligarchy. And that's the history of modern Russia. No liberal wants the US to be Russia (although a lot of alt-right types seem to like the prospect).

Now if you were to blend the two as part of a democracy...

Business can innovate and make money, keeping production and prosperity high, while government regulates said business to prevent the kinds of shenanigans that unregulated businessmen always get up to (price fixing, polluting, monopolizing, etc). These ideas are neither new, nor radical. It's actually how things used to be, and unless you regard 1955 America as a dystopian hellscape, it seems like a good example of what we ought to be doing.

The government can use tax money to cover the cost of universal healthcare, freeing people to move more readily between industries, or to take a shot at self employment or entrepreneurship. Beyond that, it would protect families from catastrophe. We're living in a system where losing your job will also cost you and your entire family their healthcare coverage. That's incredibly [love] up, Rick, especially since people have been known to lose jobs due to health problems.

Tuition-free public colleges - with high admission standards, by the way - would allow our young people to enter the workforce unencumbered by massive debts, leaving them free to buy cars and houses, start businesses, and generally participate in the economy at a much higher level than they do now. That's a good thing. The money needs to move. Moving money is good for us all. Stagnant money is useless to 99% of us. Besides that, with the speed at which technological advances and innovations are changing our economy, being able to get reeducated and move to a different job is critical. We ought to recognize that fact and support the people who are willing to make the leap.

Again, this supposedly "radical socialism" isn't really either. Most liberal economic policy aligns pretty closely with Eisenhower Republicanism. The parts that don't are mostly ideas that have worked successfully in other industrialized nations for decades.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 5:37 am**

Whatever blend of economic and healthcare policies, it has to be economically sustainable. It shouldn't kill incentives for people to work or encourage them to idly sit and milk the system - meaning there has to be some level of carrot and stick approach, which largely we've not had. You can't just continuously throw benefits at people that are able to work. Give them options of training and job programs - and if they decline, let them suffer the consequences. Healthcare costs are huge - everyone can't have a Cadillac plan. For the elderly and poor we'll still need humane safety nets of healthcare. You can't saddle smaller businesses with insurance mandates that will force them to hire less full-time people. Yes, giant monopolies are dangerous - too much power and money in a company's hands can lead to lots of bad stuff - break them up. Don't OVER-regulate!

Lastly, these are huge, complex problems - meaning you can't let people illegally pour over our borders who only take and overwhelm resources necessary for our own economically challenged poor. Other countries must solve their own issues, and not just try to get rid of as many as possible. There is no perfect system - everyone has issues. Humanely run capitalism with sensible restraints that encourages and helps its underclass to escape poverty is the best.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:40 am**

edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:14 pm
RickD wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:23 pm An old article I found.
Silliness. There's no point debating whether socialism/collectivism or laissez-faire capitalism is the best path forward. It's a false dilemma. Unadulterated they're both terrible. Judiciously combined they can produce a just, stable, prosperous society.

Besides, nobody serious is calling for the former, and the latter is only supported by libertarians...like the Koch brothers...oh, [poop].

Meh, whatever, there's nothing for it.

Anyway...

Laissez-faire capitalism seems swell, but if you take it to it's logical conclusion you end up with a totalitarian nightmare. The smartest, strongest, and most ruthless get rich. Then they use their wealth to get richer. They shut down threatening innovation, collude to control industries and fix prices, and propagandize to distract from what they're doing. It's inevitable. That's just human nature. A corporation that isn't growing, diversifying, and absorbing the competition is going to wither away and get absorbed by somebody else. As a matter of fact, the dystopian nightmare is pretty much where we're headed right now. Inequality is at historically high levels and the gap is widening. Crony capitalists subvert our collective will to privatize their own gains and socialize their losses. They make bank, we pay for bailouts. It's a terrible system. We're literally being robbed daily, yet here you sit wringing your hands at the prospect of the robbers being taxed a bit more. Amazing.

Pure collective socialism seems...fair or something? In reality it's also awful. The government has too much control over the economy. Creativity is stifled, commerce suffers, production drops off, and before long we're all in line for toilet paper. All of us, that is, except our (secretly rich) comrades in the government, who live like fat cats. Eventually things get bad enough that the whole thing collapses, at which point the rich guys from the government steal everything and create a kleptocratic, totalitarian oligarchy. And that's the history of modern Russia. No liberal wants the US to be Russia (although a lot of alt-right types seem to like the prospect).

Now if you were to blend the two as part of a democracy...

Business can innovate and make money, keeping production and prosperity high, while government regulates said business to prevent the kinds of shenanigans that unregulated businessmen always get up to (price fixing, polluting, monopolizing, etc). These ideas are neither new, nor radical. It's actually how things used to be, and unless you regard 1955 America as a dystopian hellscape, it seems like a good example of what we ought to be doing.

The government can use tax money to cover the cost of universal healthcare, freeing people to move more readily between industries, or to take a shot at self employment or entrepreneurship. Beyond that, it would protect families from catastrophe. We're living in a system where losing your job will also cost you and your entire family their healthcare coverage. That's incredibly [love] up, Rick, especially since people have been known to lose jobs due to health problems.

Tuition-free public colleges - with high admission standards, by the way - would allow our young people to enter the workforce unencumbered by massive debts, leaving them free to buy cars and houses, start businesses, and generally participate in the economy at a much higher level than they do now. That's a good thing. The money needs to move. Moving money is good for us all. Stagnant money is useless to 99% of us. Besides that, with the speed at which technological advances and innovations are changing our economy, being able to get reeducated and move to a different job is critical. We ought to recognize that fact and support the people who are willing to make the leap.

Again, this supposedly "radical socialism" isn't really either. Most liberal economic policy aligns pretty closely with Eisenhower Republicanism. The parts that don't are mostly ideas that have worked successfully in other industrialized nations for decades.

I guess this just shows how far to the left you are, despite the fact that you think you are closer to the center. It's just basic fundamental disagreement, that I have with leftist policies(My God, I'm starting to sound like B.W.

).

Socialist policies, as I've said before, are theft, and lead to laziness. And when people lose the motivation to work harder and produce better products, we fall behind as a nation.

As I've said before, Americans are a giving people. We don't need the government stealing our money, and distributing it as they see fit.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:46 am**

The government can use tax money to cover the cost of universal healthcare, freeing people to move more readily between industries, or to take a shot at self employment or entrepreneurship. Beyond that, it would protect families from catastrophe. We're living in a system where losing your job will also cost you and your entire family their healthcare coverage. That's incredibly [love] up, Rick, especially since people have been known to lose jobs due to health problems.

I think that universal health care is crucial, a must really.
The issue is wither government is the best one to address it.
I think it should be made a RIGHT and as such, part of the constitution and that the BEST possible health care be mandated as a inalienable right.

Tuition-free public colleges - with high admission standards, by the way - would allow our young people to enter the workforce unencumbered by massive debts, leaving them free to buy cars and houses, start businesses, and generally participate in the economy at a much higher level than they do now. That's a good thing. The money needs to move. Moving money is good for us all. Stagnant money is useless to 99% of us. Besides that, with the speed at which technological advances and innovations are changing our economy, being able to get reeducated and move to a different job is critical. We ought to recognize that fact and support the people who are willing to make the leap.

Sure, as long as it is MERIT based and by that I mean ONLY those with the best scores get in.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:53 am**

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:46 am
The government can use tax money to cover the cost of universal healthcare, freeing people to move more readily between industries, or to take a shot at self employment or entrepreneurship. Beyond that, it would protect families from catastrophe. We're living in a system where losing your job will also cost you and your entire family their healthcare coverage. That's incredibly [love] up, Rick, especially since people have been known to lose jobs due to health problems.

I think that universal health care is crucial, a must really.
The issue is wither government is the best one to address it.
I think it should be made a RIGHT and as such, part of the constitution and that the BEST possible health care be mandated as a inalienable right.

Tuition-free public colleges - with high admission standards, by the way - would allow our young people to enter the workforce unencumbered by massive debts, leaving them free to buy cars and houses, start businesses, and generally participate in the economy at a much higher level than they do now. That's a good thing. The money needs to move. Moving money is good for us all. Stagnant money is useless to 99% of us. Besides that, with the speed at which technological advances and innovations are changing our economy, being able to get reeducated and move to a different job is critical. We ought to recognize that fact and support the people who are willing to make the leap.
Sure, as long as it is MERIT based and by that I mean ONLY those with the best scores get in.

Paul,

For the sake of argument, let's say I agree that healthcare is a right, just the same as the right to free speech, and the right to own guns.

The government doesn't give citizens the money to start their own newspaper company, so they can practice their free speech.

And the government doesn't buy people guns, so they can practice their right to bear arms.

So why should the govt pay for the "right" to healthcare?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:09 am**

Why should the government ever pay for healthcare for those who can well afford the insurance for it - which is a different thing.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:12 am**

Why should the government pay for universal health care?
Off all the crap that government uses tax dollars on, don't you think that keeping people healthy is a good use of tax dollars?
Well, other than that fact that a healthy populous is a productive one:
Universal health care means that ALL will receive health care.
Universal health care means that ALL will able to get treatment for serious illnesses that can cost people their homes or worse, their lives if they can't afford treatment.
Universal health care means that parents will see their sick children treated and not worry "what if my child gets cancer?"
And so forth.

What about those that can afford their own health care?
https://www.cancerinsurance.com/blog/te ... in-america

Here are 10 statistics about the cost of cancer treatment in America as researched by several health and cancer-related organizations:

67% of the total costs of cancer treatment are non-medical. (American Cancer Society)
Total annual cost of cancer care in the U.S. is projected to reach $175 billion by 2020, an increase of 40% from 2010. (American Society of Clinical Oncology)
Cancer drug prices have doubled in the past decade, from an average of $5,000 per month to more than $10,000. (Journal of National Cancer Institute)
11 of the 12 cancer drugs the FDA approved for fighting cancer in 2012 were priced at more than $100,000 per year. (Journal of National Cancer Institute)
According to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, cancer care cost an average of $85,201 per patient in 2010-2011. On average, cancer patients paid $3,664 in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
A survey by the American Cancer Society revealed that one-quarter of cancer patients in the U.S. put off getting a test or treatment because of the cost.
The same survey by the American Cancer Society found that 1 out of 5 respondents over the age of 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.
According to a Duke University Medical Center study of 250 cancer patients from around the country, out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. The study notes that all but one cancer patient had insurance, two-thirds were covered by Medicare, and the vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.
According to an analysis by Milliman, cancer patients getting active treatment with chemotherapy account for 22% of cancer patients, but incur almost 4 times the per-person cost of cancer patients not receiving chemotherapy.
The National Institutes of Health estimates that the overall costs of cancer in 2009 were more than $216 billion. This includes $86.6 billion for direct medical costs – the total of all health expenditures, and $130.0 billion for indirect mortality costs – the cost of lost productivity due to premature death.

And that is just cancer.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:43 am**

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:12 am Why should the government pay for universal health care?
Off all the crap that government uses tax dollars on, don't you think that keeping people healthy is a good use of tax dollars?
Well, other than that fact that a healthy populous is a productive one:
Universal health care means that ALL will receive health care.
Universal health care means that ALL will able to get treatment for serious illnesses that can cost people their homes or worse, their lives if they can't afford treatment.
Universal health care means that parents will see their sick children treated and not worry "what if my child gets cancer?"
And so forth.

What about those that can afford their own health care?
https://www.cancerinsurance.com/blog/te ... in-america

Here are 10 statistics about the cost of cancer treatment in America as researched by several health and cancer-related organizations:

67% of the total costs of cancer treatment are non-medical. (American Cancer Society)
Total annual cost of cancer care in the U.S. is projected to reach $175 billion by 2020, an increase of 40% from 2010. (American Society of Clinical Oncology)
Cancer drug prices have doubled in the past decade, from an average of $5,000 per month to more than $10,000. (Journal of National Cancer Institute)
11 of the 12 cancer drugs the FDA approved for fighting cancer in 2012 were priced at more than $100,000 per year. (Journal of National Cancer Institute)
According to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, cancer care cost an average of $85,201 per patient in 2010-2011. On average, cancer patients paid $3,664 in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
A survey by the American Cancer Society revealed that one-quarter of cancer patients in the U.S. put off getting a test or treatment because of the cost.
The same survey by the American Cancer Society found that 1 out of 5 respondents over the age of 65 said they had used all or much of their savings on cancer care.
According to a Duke University Medical Center study of 250 cancer patients from around the country, out-of-pocket expenses averaged $712 a month for doctor visits, medicines, lost wages and travel to appointments. The study notes that all but one cancer patient had insurance, two-thirds were covered by Medicare, and the vast majority also had prescription drug coverage.
According to an analysis by Milliman, cancer patients getting active treatment with chemotherapy account for 22% of cancer patients, but incur almost 4 times the per-person cost of cancer patients not receiving chemotherapy.
The National Institutes of Health estimates that the overall costs of cancer in 2009 were more than $216 billion. This includes $86.6 billion for direct medical costs – the total of all health expenditures, and $130.0 billion for indirect mortality costs – the cost of lost productivity due to premature death.

And that is just cancer.

Interesting you used cancer as an example.

Ever heard the stereotype that Americans are fat and lazy?

Obesity and heart disease are primarily due to poor lifestyle choices. I have a problem with any universal healthcare system that uses theft of citizens to fund the healthcare of fat and lazy people that don't want to make good lifestyle choices.

Which again, gets back to my point about socialism making people lazy. I can be a fatass, lazy, unhealthy person, knowing I have free healthcare to fall back on.

Or, I can make healthy lifestyle choices, get off my fat lazy ass, and take responsibility for myself, instead of expecting my burden to be taken care of by others.

Do we have a problem with the overall system of healthcare in this country? Absolutely. Is putting our government in charge of a universal healthcare system the way to fix it?

Considering the record of our government, and the way they handle things they're in charge of, no. Absolutely not.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 am**

I see your points Rick, but the problem isn't universal health care, its education and crappy elected officials.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:46 am**

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 am I see your points Rick, but the problem isn't universal health care, its education and crappy elected officials.

No, the solution isn't universal, government run healthcare.

More government control here in the US, is not the solution to anything.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:09 am**

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:46 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 am I see your points Rick, but the problem isn't universal health care, its education and crappy elected officials.
No, the solution isn't universal, government run healthcare.

More government control here in the US, is not the solution to anything.

Well, private health care isn't working so...
Suggestions?

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:24 am**

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:09 am
RickD wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:46 am
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 am I see your points Rick, but the problem isn't universal health care, its education and crappy elected officials.
No, the solution isn't universal, government run healthcare.

More government control here in the US, is not the solution to anything.
Well, private health care isn't working so...
Suggestions?

I'm writing my dissertation on the solution to why we don't have world peace. As soon as I'm done with that, I'll give you my solution to the problems with the American healthcare system.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:34 am**

LMAO !
Well said Sir, Well said indeed.

Posted: **Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:04 pm**

Seriously, though - why would we use tax money to pay for health insurance for the classes of people who can certainly afford it. Because that gives government more power and builds more bureaucracy than is necessary. Private industry can have key regulations from overpricing and is pretty conservative with overseeing cost abuses. The government is a poor watchdog and purse-minder. It's only taxpayer money, right? And as with all these things, let's not forget that many people out there don't mind a meager existence as long as their housing, healthcare and food is heavily subsidized - they'd rather live like that than have ambition to work and be independent of government and taxpayer help. We must figure ways of breaking that mentality.

Evidence for God from Science

Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama

Re: Miss Socialist Lite Snubbed by Obama