Bashing Ayn Rand

[M.D. Rawlings]

M. D. I am an orthodox Christian, not one of the far right evangelical or fundamentalist heretic sects.

You are not the orthodoxy, not anywhere near it.

Since you are clearly not a critical thinker and not one to use objectivity in examination, I suggest you are wasting your time. You allow us to laugh at your attempts to rationalize the irrational premise.

Correction: orthodox Christians give far more in tithing and charity than the left. If the far right Christians want to jump on board, very good.

You haven’t defined what you claim an orthodox Christian to be, only what you claim an orthodox Christian not to be, so no one knows what you’re talking about. In the meantime, the persons whom you accuse of not being true Christians, but heretics, give more in charity than any other group in America. Period.

In this instance, orthodoxy is normally understood to mean the traditional biblical worldview, fidelity to the teachings of the Bible and the Gospel of Christ. Call yourself an orthodox Christian all you want. Semantics. We evangelicals follow the Bible, not the political correctness and multiculturalism of this world.

Standard academia holds that someone who takes the positions you do on human sexuality and government, just for starters, is at the very best, a proponent of liberal/progressive Christian doctrine/theology, not a proponent of orthodox doctrine/theology.

The only one not making any sense here is you.

Orthodox

1

a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

b: conventional

2

capitalized: of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: —Merriam Webster

Evangelicals Give More to Charity, Study Finds
Evangelicals Give More to Charity, Study Finds - Religion Today Blog

Evangelicals give more to charity, Barna finds
BRnow.org - Evangelicals give more to charity, Barna finds

Their brothers's keepers
Evangelicals: Their brothers's keepers | The Economist

Evangelical Christians Give More, New Survey Reveals
Evangelical Christians Give More, New Survey Reveals | Christian News on Christian Today


Just Google “charity” and watch the reams of articles on American charity and evangelicals as the hands down greatest givers of charity in this country fill the screen.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And that is why, M. D., you are irrelevant to the American discussion.

By which you mean, my position is not politically feasible at the moment in America or that the idea of privatizing the ownership of governmentally regulated retirement and medical accounts which earn interest is not a good idea?

News flash for, Mr. Relevant: if the sanity proposed by those of us who understand what true liberty and prosperity are does not soon prevail, this country is going to financially collapse under the weight of statically funded entitlements.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your position "is not politically feasible" and that privatization only enriches the corporation while screwing the client and ripping off the tax payer and providing increasingly poor services: witness prisoners, foster care, elder care, etc., for starters.

No one says the system does not need to be reformed; however, nothing the libertarian or reactionary wings offer would even be the equivalent to what the system now offers.

 

[Bfgrn]

And that is why, M. D., you are irrelevant to the American discussion.

By which you mean, my position is not politically feasible at the moment in America or that the idea of privatizing the ownership of governmentally regulated retirement and medical accounts which earn interest is not a good idea?

New flash for, Mr. Relevant: if the sanity proposed by those of us who understand what true liberty and prosperity are does not soon prevail, this country is going to financially collapse under the weight of statically funded entitlements.

GREAT...then Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be like our privatized health care.

The MOST expensive in the world...by FAR.

Paying Till It Hurts A Case Study in High Costs

 

[Political Junky]

And that is why, M. D., you are irrelevant to the American discussion.

By which you mean, my position is not politically feasible at the moment in America or that the idea of privatizing the ownership of governmentally regulated retirement and medical accounts which earn interest is not a good idea?

New flash for, Mr. Relevant: if the sanity proposed by those of us who understand what true liberty and prosperity are does not soon prevail, this country is going to financially collapse under the weight of statically funded entitlements.

GREAT...then Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be like our privatized health care.

The MOST expensive in the world...by FAR.

Paying Till It Hurts A Case Study in High Costs

Hard to argue with those figures.

 

[bripat9643]

By which you mean, my position is not politically feasible at the moment in America or that the idea of privatizing the ownership of governmentally regulated retirement and medical accounts which earn interest is not a good idea?

New flash for, Mr. Relevant: if the sanity proposed by those of us who understand what true liberty and prosperity are does not soon prevail, this country is going to financially collapse under the weight of statically funded entitlements.

GREAT...then Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be like our privatized health care.

The MOST expensive in the world...by FAR.

Paying Till It Hurts A Case Study in High Costs

Hard to argue with those figures.

It's easy to argue with them. For one thing, is that the cost of performing the service quoted or is it the price charged the consumer? What does the price even mean when all the prices of the inputs are set by government fiat? Then there's also the waiting time to consider. How long does it take to get an MRI in Canada? I can call my doctor and get an MRI this week. A Canadian will have to wait at least three months.

You also quoted a price from a different country for each procedure. I'm certain what you did is find the country that had the cheapest price for that procedure - a price that is set by fiat and therefore totally arbitrary.

Consider the price of Lipitor, for example. Is that for one 80mg tablet or 30x80mg tablets? The price in Canada is $178 for 30x80mg tablets. I doubt any insurance company pays $124 for a single 80 mg tablet. That would be over $3600/month for a cholesterol medication. So it appears your figures are total bullshit

In short, your little PowerPoint slide is pure horseshit.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

GREAT...then Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be like our privatized health care.

The MOST expensive in the world...by FAR.

Paying Till It Hurts A Case Study in High Costs

Hard to argue with those figures.

It's easy to argue with them. For one thing, is that the cost of performing the service quoted or is it the price charged the consumer? What does the price even mean when all the prices of the inputs are set by government fiat? Then there's also the waiting time to consider. How long does it take to get an MRI in Canada? I can call my doctor and get an MRI this week. A Canadian will have to wait at least three months.

You also quoted a price from a different country for each procedure. I'm certain what you did is find the country that had the cheapest price for that procedure - a price that is set by fiat and therefore totally arbitrary.

Consider the price of Lipitor, for example. Is that for one 80mg tablet or 30x80mg tablets? The price in Canada is $178 for 30x80mg tablets. I doubt any insurance company pays $124 for a single 80 mg tablet. That would be over $3600/month for a cholesterol medication. So it appears your figures are total bullshit

In short, your little PowerPoint slide is pure horseshit.

Just so.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your position "is not politically feasible" and that privatization only enriches the corporation while screwing the client and ripping off the tax payer and providing increasingly poor services: witness prisoners, foster care, elder care, etc., for starters.

No one says the system does not need to be reformed; however, nothing the libertarian or reactionary wings offer would even be the equivalent to what the system now offers.

I know it's not politically feasible now, because our country has abandoned the very classical liberalism that made it great, and there's too many numbskulls like you around who don't get it. It's decline and fall time. Put a fork in it.

Nevertheless, the private ownership of retirement and medical accounts currently held by the government would readily solve the problem and enrich all Americans. You don't know what your talking about. Why do you think the most popular option for employer provided heath insurance are privately owned medical savings accounts backed by 80% to 100% coverage after affordable annual deductibles?

My medical account is worth thousands more than what I contributed. It would be worth even thousands more were my contributions to Medicare given back to whom they belong, namely, me. And that's before we add on the thousands more my account has generated in terms of investment capital for my company which is able to easily pay my medical bills after my deductible precisely because of the earnings it gleans from the investment power of my account and those of my peers. My company can also kick back matching contributions to my medical savings account per returns on this investment capital.

But of course ObamaCare threatens the stability of my current plan.

On the other hand, there are no savings and no earnings with regard to the contributions in governmentally held entitlements. The contributions are not just static, they're worth less and less with each passing year. It's an unsustainable ponzi scheme.

You babble about reform, but offer absolutely nothing . . . just more of the same old rhetoric and more of the same old static governmental contributions, as you spurn the solutions and innovations of the private sector that is solving these problems against the tide of an increasingly wasteful and burdensome government.

Dummy. There’s only two options here. Simply stated, revenue goes in and revenue goes out (current system), or it goes in and stays and earns interest.

There are no other options, only variations of the latter. The only people talking about variations of the latter are libertarians and conservatives.

What did you incoherently and clumsily write after confounding governmental initiatives with private enterprises? “[N]othing the libertarian or reactionary wings [pejorative] offer would even be the equivalent to what the system now offers.” LOL! My retirement and medical savings accounts would be worth tens of thousands more right now without the “help” of the government and so would yours.