Can you be a truly good Christian, yet be against universal healthcare?

[AllieBaba]

Honey, of course it does. THat's why the word "other" is in it.

Do unto OTHERS as you would have OTHERS do unto you.

You still haven't addressed how forcing others to do things isn't a violation. Are you saying that some people enjoy force? (In which case, of course, it wouldn't be force....)

 

[manifold]

You did However say that forcing people to pay taxes to help pay for others health care was following the Golden rule.

But Ravis trying to play semantics here. She didn't say it "followed" the golden rule, she said it didn't violate it.

A. She's lying. She did in fact ask the question "How is this not FOLLOWING the golden rule."

B. She's retarded (or an intellectually dishonest fucktard) for suggesting that there is a difference between "following" and "not violating" the golden rule.

 

[Ravi]

Im not asking you for a solution; im incorporating you into the Shogun's Great Health Care Compromise.


Now, you are a woman in the adult female catagory. I'm sure you are familiar with preventative screenings and such. What, in your opinion, are the top ten issues females should consider in order to preempt a medical condition? Once we develop a basic list of preventative screenings we can gauge a COST and offer these to all Americans. Now, of course this won't be as good as private insurance but it's a place to start. Membership would be free to current US citizens and would be funded by donations by half of the nation who can put their money where their mouths are. The gov can match dollar for dollar donated funding to a limit. donated funds would cover the coverage cost of the program and, hopefully, expanded services but NOT salaries of any kind.

sure, the idea needs a bit more thought but I think this is a fresh idea outside of stagnating polarization. I have a hard time accepting that it's the states job to keep it's people healthy rather than the individual. However, perhaps the state could offer a basic service to preempt health issues.. Let those who want UHC invest donate their money rather than insist that a wealthy class pay for the chainsmoking, cheeseburger lifestyle of someone who wants equivalent coverage for nothing.

Why just the top ten, why not anything that can turn deadly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course there is no defined, specific set of rules for all to follow. That is exactly why you can only apply the golden rule to one's specific moral code.

I don't think the government operates under the golden rule. If it did, we certainly wouldn't be invading other countries, would we? But if you think of the government as a single being comprised of each individual it represents than you can say that it isn't violating its golden rule by taxing everyone. Because the majority is in agreement that we should be taxed and the monies should be used to improve life for all.

Golden Rule has nothing what so ever to do with Governments. Never has, never will. A Government MUST, by its very NATURE make decisions for the whole, or at least more than ONE individual. In our case it makes decisions for the majority within a frame work of rules laid out called the Constitution. The Constitution is there to ensure certain things are not at the whim of a bare majority.

Trying to turn Governments into an individual and apply decisions it makes or does not make at the Individual level will always leave you wanting, cause it does NOT work that way. Governments do not have Friends, they have allies.

The Government, ours at least, fights wars in defense of our country and our citizens. Iraq was JUSTIFIED to a majority of Congresscritters by showing a potential looming threat to THIS Country, it's interests, its people and its survival as a Nation. All enough, each alone, to go to war.

 

[Ravi]

Honey, of course it does. THat's why the word "other" is in it.

Do unto OTHERS as you would have OTHERS do unto you.

You still haven't addressed how forcing others to do things isn't a violation. Are you saying that some people enjoy force? (In which case, of course, it wouldn't be force....)

But YOU are the only important person in the equation. The OTHERS are just a reference point to check yourself against.

 

[Ravi]

But Ravis trying to play semantics here. She didn't say it "followed" the golden rule, she said it didn't violate it.

A. She's lying. She did in fact ask the question "How is this not FOLLOWING the golden rule."

B. She's retarded (or an intellectually dishonest fucktard) for suggesting that there is a difference between "following" and "not violating" the golden rule.

Sigh. Following, violating...you originally claimed that UHC violated the golden rule. I said it didn't. Nothing I've said since then has been unconsistent with my belief. Just because something is following something, it doesn't mean it does purposely.

Quit being a dillhole.

 

[Shogun]

Why just the top ten, why not anything that can turn deadly?

because im pretty sure the donations needed to cover the cost will be less quick to manifest than the FREEdom to bitch about UHC. But, the program COULD grow to incorporate a wide variety of health issues as long as those who believe in UHC are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Like I said, it's a starting point. One that makes clear distinction between private health care and UHC. One that is absolutely voluntary and removes the lefty routine of taxing the rich for the sake of the poor who, to be honest, create their own health issues with an unhealthy lifestyle. I include my tobacco loving self into that. If I destroy my liver by consuming alcohol like a fish does water then why should it be a rich persons obligation to pay for my transplant? However, if the broke ass alchy has access to screenings each year that convey to him how his lifestyle is deteriorating his liver then he has every opportunity to circumvent the entire transplant issue altogether.

make sense?

 

[jreeves]

Pretty amazing, isn't it?

But...what if you want to live in a society that taxes you? Isn't it your choice to be taxed as a condition of living in the society? I'm not sure if taxation violates the golden rule.[/QUOTE]
It could be inferred from this comment.

 

[manifold]

Sigh. Following, violating...you originally claimed that UHC violated the golden rule. I said it didn't. Nothing I've said since then has been unconsistent with my belief. Just because something is following something, it doesn't mean it does purposely.

Quit being a dillhole.

Actually, I said an argument can be made that it simultaneously follows and violates the golden rule, thereby rendering the whole discussion arbitrary and moot. And subsequently, I added that... and here's the important bit... IN MY OPINION, it violates it more than it follows it. Then you chimed in with your insistence that it doesn't violate it at all and offered a bunch of circular logic bullshit that has since been totally discredited by everyone that has bothered to join the discussion. Including RGS of all people. How does it feel to know that even he is kicking you while you're down?

 

[midcan5]

Forcing others to follow the golden rule, as you determine it to be, is to violate the golden rule.

If you want to get really philosophical and absolute about it, taxation for any purpose violates the golden rule.

We aren't talking about taxation (and I have no clue how that contradicts the GR). We are talking about a principle that is included in every religion, the idea that you treat others the same as you wish to be treated. Reciprocity. Given a specific set of circumstances, in this case healthcare, would everyone want that - not whatever you feel like it is doing. The GR is not some simple tit for tat but a way of acting in the world. I think you prove why religion cannot answer the tough questions, such as selfishness, as personal bias quickly enters into even so simple a discussion. You also prove why taxes and laws are necessary. Russell said it long ago Christianity is an interesting idea that has never been tried.

"Which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus replied: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37

 

[manifold]

We aren't talking about taxation (and I have no clue how that contradicts the GR). We are talking about a principle that is included in every religion, the idea that you treat others the same as you wish to be treated. Reciprocity. Given a specific set of circumstances, in this case healthcare, would everyone want that - not whatever you feel like it is doing. The GR is not some simple tit for tat but a way of acting in the world. I think you prove why religion cannot answer the tough questions, such as selfishness, as personal bias quickly enters into even so simple a discussion. You also prove why taxes and laws are necessary. Russell said it long ago Christianity is an interesting idea that has never been tried.

"Which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus replied: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37

I guess you missed the part where I already agreed that caring for the sick follows the golden rule. It's when the discussion turns to UHC that I say the golden rule doesn't apply. And apparently we agree about that.

So what are we arguing about again?

 

[jreeves]

We aren't talking about taxation (and I have no clue how that contradicts the GR). We are talking about a principle that is included in every religion, the idea that you treat others the same as you wish to be treated. Reciprocity. Given a specific set of circumstances, in this case healthcare, would everyone want that - not whatever you feel like it is doing. The GR is not some simple tit for tat but a way of acting in the world. I think you prove why religion cannot answer the tough questions, such as selfishness, as personal bias quickly enters into even so simple a discussion. You also prove why taxes and laws are necessary. Russell said it long ago Christianity is an interesting idea that has never been tried.

"Which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus replied: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37

You missed the part about separation of church and state huh?

 

[Ravi]

Pretty amazing, isn't it?

But...what if you want to live in a society that taxes you? Isn't it your choice to be taxed as a condition of living in the society? I'm not sure if taxation violates the golden rule.[/QUOTE]
It could be inferred from this comment.

Well, you inferred wrong.

 

[manifold]

Well, you inferred wrong.

Peckpeddling, lying sack of shit.

 

[Ravi]

because im pretty sure the donations needed to cover the cost will be less quick to manifest than the FREEdom to bitch about UHC. But, the program COULD grow to incorporate a wide variety of health issues as long as those who believe in UHC are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Like I said, it's a starting point. One that makes clear distinction between private health care and UHC. One that is absolutely voluntary and removes the lefty routine of taxing the rich for the sake of the poor who, to be honest, create their own health issues with an unhealthy lifestyle. I include my tobacco loving self into that. If I destroy my liver by consuming alcohol like a fish does water then why should it be a rich persons obligation to pay for my transplant? However, if the broke ass alchy has access to screenings each year that convey to him how his lifestyle is deteriorating his liver then he has every opportunity to circumvent the entire transplant issue altogether.

make sense?

Maybe. I'll have to think about it. So you think that a few issues should be covered for everyone and everything else is a personal responsibility?

 

[Ravi]

Actually, I said an argument can be made that it simultaneously follows and violates the golden rule, thereby rendering the whole discussion arbitrary and moot. And subsequently, I added that... and here's the important bit... IN MY OPINION, it violates it more than it follows it. Then you chimed in with your insistence that it doesn't violate it at all and offered a bunch of circular logic bullshit that has since been totally discredited by everyone that has bothered to join the discussion. Including RGS of all people. How does it feel to know that even he is kicking you while you're down?

lol! I dropped all that remember. And I still maintain that it doesn't violate the golden rule.

Isn't everything you say YOUR OPINION, retard?

 

[Ravi]

Peckpeddling, lying sack of shit.

No, that would be you.

 

[jreeves]

Well, you inferred wrong.

What did you mean by this then?

I'm not sure if taxation violates the golden rule

 

[Ravi]

What did you mean by this then?

I'm not sure if taxation violates the golden rule

It means it doesn't violate it. It doesn't mean that I think taxation is in place because of the golden rule. It doesn't mean I think the golden rule mandates taxation...or UHC, for that matter. It just means it doesn't violate it.

 

[manifold]

What did you mean by this then?

I'm not sure if taxation violates the golden rule

It's Ravi-speak for "I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I, I know you are but what am I...infinity!"