Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

pebbleanrock wrote:I come from sydney. We have a thing called bulk billing here. All it costs me to see a doctor is the petrol to get there. I notice england france canada new zealand, practically every civilized western nation has free health. Why is the U.S. so retarded and nasty regarding their poor. Rich people dont care because they can afford it. Very anti-christ.

There are many ''civilized western nations'' that do not have free health care. I don't see what civilization and public health care have to do one with the other; please explain! Also, since when is private (pay-as-you-go) health care unchristian?

FL

the first 5 letters of CIVILization explain my attitude. In Australia the taxes of only 25 million people support the infrastructural of a country the same size as the USA. We have a 1.5% surcharge on our taxes to support our medicare. So little money, so much empathy. By the way, which CIVILized nations don't have subsidized health? You did"t say. By civil I don't mean countries that produce; massive arms sales; massive pornography sales, massive debt and massively jailing of its citizens. Country like this should sink below the waves or learn to be CIVIL.

pebbleanrock wrote:the first 5 letters of CIVILization explain my attitude. In Australia the taxes of only 25 million people support the infrastructural of a country the same size as the USA. We have a 1.5% surcharge on our taxes to support our medicare. So little money, so much empathy. By the way, which CIVILized nations don't have subsidized health? You did"t say. By civil I don't mean countries that produce; massive arms sales; massive pornography sales, massive debt and massively jailing of its citizens. Country like this should sink below the waves or learn to be CIVIL.

Perhaps you should give us your definition of civilization. Post it for us, then I will post the dictionary definition of the same word. We'll compare them and take up the discussion from there.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

pebbleanrock wrote:the first 5 letters of CIVILization explain my attitude. In Australia the taxes of only 25 million people support the infrastructural of a country the same size as the USA. We have a 1.5% surcharge on our taxes to support our medicare. So little money, so much empathy. By the way, which CIVILized nations don't have subsidized health? You did"t say. By civil I don't mean countries that produce; massive arms sales; massive pornography sales, massive debt and massively jailing of its citizens. Country like this should sink below the waves or learn to be CIVIL.

Perhaps you should give us your definition of civilization. Post it for us, then I will post the dictionary definition of the same word. We'll compare them and take up the discussion from there.

FL

civil= polite, obliging [the little oxford dictionary]. Furthermore was Jesus civil?

pebbleanrock wrote:civil= polite, obliging [the little oxford dictionary].

Thanks, but I asked for your definition of civilization because you made this statement:

pebbleanrock wrote:By civil I don't mean countries that produce; massive arms sales; massive pornography sales, massive debt and massively jailing of its citizens. Country like this should sink below the waves or learn to be CIVIL.

So, are countries like the USA, Australia & Canada (to name but 3) unCIVILized because they produce weaponry, pornography, debt and put citizens in jail? And, what does civilization have to do with public health care?

pebbleanrock wrote:Furthermore was Jesus civil?

Jesus spoke plainly, called hypocrites that to their face. Often, people found him quite offensive. If you are looking for a model of civility, you should consider the world's heros: Ghandi, Queen Elizabeth II and the Buddha are more civil than Jesus. And what does Jesus have to do with public health care?

FL

I honestly wouldn't mind having a Universal health care system. Reason being, there's no money in the family. But, from what people tell me. The waiting for an appointment is forever, and the quality of the service is bad. I haven't experienced it, so... I'm unbiased.

Dallas wrote:I honestly wouldn't mind having a Universal health care system. Reason being, there's no money in the family. But, from what people tell me. The waiting for an appointment is forever, and the quality of the service is bad. I haven't experienced it, so... I'm unbiased.

You, being in the USA, won't experience public health care anytime soon...probably never. There are some advantages to a publicly funded system: everybody gets care, no one is turned away, no one loses their life savings paying hospital bills and medication is usually much cheaper as well.

FL

What people from other countries do not understand is our current Governmental system. The Health Care systems in other countries look to take care of the People.

The 2000 plus pages of the USA HealthCare Bill seeks only to take care of the Governing powers and not the people.

That is the big difference.

The Goal of the current US health care bill is not about taking care of people but rather seeks to enslave a perpetual voting block to depend for all needs upon their Governing system and to destroy the USA current Constitutional form of Government by challenging it. If it is successful in its challenge, that alone builds a legal structure to build off to further enslave people to the tyranny of governmental system.

The Current bill is a very bad bill. This bill is not about health care, or taking care of people, it is about solidifying compete dominance of Government over the people to control them. It was done without debate in a Congress – Democratic Party congress who had been in majority power since 2006, who hates Republicans with a insane unjustified hatred. The Republicans thought and many still do think they are colleges but the Dems do not share that view.

The Majority violated protocol and push a 200 plus page bill in which (D) Nancy Pelosi said, something to the effect, “we need to pass the bill to understand what is in it.”

These people did not write the bill and thus negated their constitutional role in law making. This bill plays on people’s fears and heartstrings but the actual legalese of it build structures that will destroy America as we know it. Some people is foreign countries think that is a great idea. Like China, Russia, etc.

This bill with the title of Health Care is not about heath care. It is about Taking care of the needs of Government to control a populace. In other countries that have universal care, your system seem tto be interested in taking care of the people. Not so here in the USA. It is the other way around and something you all need to understand.

Do we need a better Health Care system –Yes – but not the ones forced upon the US Citizen in the dead of night, forgoing the role of Congress to make laws with consent of both parties, forged by radicals who hate America who seek its demise. Sorry, such a bill must go and a new and better plan that seeks to aid the people needs implemented, not one that seeks to aid complete Governmental control over its populace.

If the bill is so great, then why do not the unions embrace it? Or members of Congress subject themselves to it?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:The 2000 plus pages of the USA HealthCare Bill seeks only to take care of the Governing powers and not the people.

Well...that is the assessment of the Canadian commentators I've heard who have studied the US bill. Frankly, I come at it from a different perspective: the USA will never have the type public health care we have in Commonwealth nations* because it is just against the American mindset. To the USA, health care is like gun control: Do It Yourself. I have no problem with that.

FL

*that is, most of the nations comprising the former British Empire.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Dallas wrote:I honestly wouldn't mind having a Universal health care system. Reason being, there's no money in the family. But, from what people tell me. The waiting for an appointment is forever, and the quality of the service is bad. I haven't experienced it, so... I'm unbiased.

You, being in the USA, won't experience public health care anytime soon...probably never. There are some advantages to a publicly funded system: everybody gets care, no one is turned away, no one loses their life savings paying hospital bills and medication is usually much cheaper as well.

FL

We have a universal health care system here in Croatia. It's funded mostly through fees paid by employers that are added to the gross salary, and together make up the total cost of labour. However, because of reforms in the past decade, citizens also participate in health care funding, either by paying a share in the price of prescribed medication, or by using an additional insurance package which costs, but brings more benefits. Long queues may sometimes be a problem, but the issue is currently being fixed. For problems that are not grave or urgent, such as sore throat or flu, there are some sort of polyclinics (sometimes called 'health stations' and similar terms) which serve to remove the burden from hospitals and are located basically in every larger neighbourhood. Those who have money can "do it themselves" and go to a private clinic where they can be treated more quickly and where doctors usually possess technologically more advanced equipment.

I am definitely a supporter of universal health care, I consider it a right, as well as a sign of solidarity and progress. However, I'm not entitled to judge other countries' doctrines in that field.

I am definitely a supporter of universal health care, I consider it a right, as well as a sign of solidarity and progress. However, I'm not entitled to judge other countries' doctrines in that field.

Reactionary, there have been more than a few people here, who consider healthcare to be a "right". Now, I guess I've never considered it a right, but I'm open to arguments from the other side. Why do you consider healthcare to be a right that should be paid for by the govt.? When I think of rights, the first thing that comes to mind, is something like the right to life. Maybe it's the capitalism mindset we have here, but I just don't understand a service that is provided, and costs money, as being a "right".

RickD wrote:

I am definitely a supporter of universal health care, I consider it a right, as well as a sign of solidarity and progress. However, I'm not entitled to judge other countries' doctrines in that field.

Reactionary, there have been more than a few people here, who consider healthcare to be a "right". Now, I guess I've never considered it a right, but I'm open to arguments from the other side. Why do you consider healthcare to be a right that should be paid for by the govt.? When I think of rights, the first thing that comes to mind, is something like the right to life. Maybe it's the capitalism mindset we have here, but I just don't understand a service that is provided, and costs money, as being a "right".

Let's say that someone gets sick from a life-threatening disease. We know the medicine to cure it, but it costs, and the sick person can't afford it. Would it be fair if we let that person die, because of that? Let's face it, that person could be any of us in the future, so it's not that it's none of our business. By having a universal health care system, we can rest assured that, if something like that happens (God forbid), we'll be treated. We all contribute to the system (citizens, employers, government) as any of us could need medical help. You mentioned the right to life - well, I believe that right to a healthy life is closely tied to that, isn't it? On the other hand, I don't believe that a system in which people with more money survive, while those with less money die, is fair. Besides, a healthy population is a more productive population, so I believe that it's in the best interests of a state to invest in it.

@RickD

I am not that familiar with the US taxing system, but please tell me: what does the government offer you for the taxes you pay?

Do you at least get a pension or something like that?

BryanH wrote:@RickD

I am not that familiar with the US taxing system, but please tell me: what does the government offer you for the taxes you pay?

Do you at least get a pension or something like that?

If you want to call social security, a pension.http://www.ssa.gov/

And, medicare is available for those who qualify.

And Bryan, don't feel bad. The U.S. tax system is so complicated, that even many tax specialists aren't familiar with the system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmmw5f0c ... _T9P6LeRE=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AF ... JFJpqcMy8=

Two videos that are not for universal health care for anyone interested.

I don't know a ton about politics, but remember that costs extend into the economic impacts of collecting everybody's money and removing it from the market. Also, a capitalistic service assures that people who TRULY need medical care get it quickly, and that it is good medical care. Care under the pressures of capitalism will get better and cheaper, while the government can spend money to improve the lives of the truly impoverished.

What about the loss of our individual freedoms as well?
My point of view for now.

This video makes me question my point of view haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXXBCFnh ... re=related

Now that I think about it.. healthier people = more productivity. And why would the government paying for health care have an impact on freedoms? We could still choose.
Would prices ramp up as people used medical care more? Then there would be limits. And loss of freedom.
----
Sorry for the back and forth nature of my post.. my mind boggles about this subject. Any comments on the satisfaction of Canada's system?

Also, a capitalistic service assures that people who TRULY need medical care get it quickly

Except those who can't afford insurance or those who private companies won't insure. Or, even if they do get care they could easily be financially handcuffed for years afterward.

Care under the pressures of capitalism will get better and cheaper

Would you like to back that up? Insurance is getting more and more expensive in the US, not cheaper. It has become further out of reach and insurance companies can choose to not insure/stop insuring anyone at any time. Capitalism is driving up that price, not the other way around. A universal system will in the end be far cheaper to basically everyone, and there would be no worry about being dropped by an insurance company just because you get sick or hurt.

while the government can spend money to improve the lives of the truly impoverished.

Wouldn't health care for the poor literally be the most powerful way of improving the lives of the uninsured? And for those who are financially strapped by medical bills and insurance costs, alleviating that burden would bring significant improvement to their economic situation and reduce everyday stress caused by it.