"Thankfully she had insurance." That's the point.

Yes, it's our responsibility to take care of our own, but what does that mean? Should we be expected to shoulder all their medical costs in a world where medical costs are many orders of magnitude higher than they were when the Bible was written? My stepmother died of cancer, but in fact so did my father, and so did my mother. And my first stepmother (whom my father married after my mother died when I was eight years old) died of multiple sclerosis. If none of them had had health insurance, my siblings and I would have spent our entire lives paying for their medical costs.

I happened to have been born in Canada to parents who were both U.S. citizens; we moved back to the States shortly after I was born. That means I have dual citizenship. I lived in the United States most of my life, but I've lived in Canada for the past 10 years. Not having to worry about health coverage makes a big difference in my life, and it gives me far more freedom than I had in the States: I don't have to consider health plans when choosing among employers, I can freelance if I want to without having to pay for health insurance, I can retire early (well, I could if I'd been a better saver/investor) without having to worry about how to afford healthcare. Yes, the system up here isn't perfect, but you have to consider that we are trying to fund state-of-the-art medical infrastructure and highly trained professionals with funds collected from a population that's 1/10 that of the United States. And the health plans are at the provincial level, not federal.

Are my taxes higher? Yes, but not dramatically so. My marginal tax rate is the highest in North America (about 52% for 2012), but last I checked my effective tax rate is somewhere around 32%, not much higher than it would be if I were living in the States at my current salary. And I'm happy to pay it, because everyone has the same access to healthcare that I do and that seems fair to me. If my relatives were living here and one of them got sick, I could help take care of them without worrying that it would bankrupt me. In some ways, our system brings us back toward Biblical days where "taking care of one's own" didn't involve devastating financial sacrifices: it just demanded time and compassion.

you guys are still talking about this?!

The regs aren't even out yet!

Eagle,

I've been pondering a way to respond to you. I do want to challenge your way of thinking regarding the Healthcare Reform Law (I'm going to call it the HRL from this point because I'm lazy) but I don't want to be disrespectful of your religious beliefs. This is not an easy course to navigate because your think that your religious beliefs are at the core of your position on the HRL.

The problem is compounded because you have a tendency to avoid the point and run off on a tangent. I'll be using some illustrations to make a point only to find that you've taken the illustration instead of the point and run off somewhere into the weeds with it. I'll give you some examples, starting with the section of our conversation pertaining to the Court decision.

I omitted the part where I wrote about the actual Court decision because DH covered it much more comprehensively than I did. The thing is, the use of the word "passed" in place of the word "upheld" is not just a matter of semantics. It's the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. That word is critical, and it curious that you used it, knowing that what the appropriate word was. But let's call that incidental. We can consider it a tangent.

On to the second matter regarding that section. You never acknowledged that the existence of Social Security and Medicare, which essentially invalidated that particular argument.

Now I, like DH, believe you to be a smart guy, and like him, am puzzled about your position. I know you must know of the existence of SS and Medicare. And if I'm right about that, you can't have come up with that statement if you'd originated it thought it through. You're too smart for that. My guess is that someone fed that line to you (maybe in a speech) and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without question. And your faith in the speaker was strong enough that you'd repeat that statement here in an open forum. What this does is make all your other statements suspect because it would seem that at least one of your primary contentions is factually wrong and so far off the mark that the true facts complete invalidate the statement.


I'm with you on this one. In fact, I'm sure that this isn't the best plan. But we've been kicking this can down the road for some decades now. Truman tried and failed. Nixon tried and failed. Clinton tried and failed. If the current law is repealed, how long would the nation have to wait? I think the only reason that the HRL passed this time around is because the trend of healthcare costs was unsustainable. We had to have something, and as imperfect as this law is, it's much better than nothing (though some would disagree with this). Better to have something that we can use as a baseline and change than to wait for the plan that never gets implemented, which is what we'd done for 60 years prior to this. "If not now, when? If not us, who?"

More later. Have other things I need to do, but there's more I want to address.

1. I don't believe in any gods or supernatural beings or powers
2. Given 1., it's not possible for 2. to be true.
3. Given 1., it's not possible for 3. to be true.

These tenets allow me to adopt a more thoughtful view on some of the things religion teaches. I am not opposed to religion. But I think when people believe things that don't fit the evidence it undermines their credibility. I believe it is possible to believe in the existence of a god based on current scientific evidence, I just choose not to because I see no operative need for a god to make the universe work. Natural processes that we basically understand do a very good job of explaining observable behavior of the universe. The unexplained parts are getting fewer and fewer.

If someone chooses to believe in a deity and practice a religion, I respect that. What I don't respect is when someone becomes unwilling to think critically simply because their religion teaches otherwise. A long time ago I WAS religious. I studied a lot within my church and pursued additional studies on my own. The particular denomination I was raised in encouraged critical thinking and reconciling the beliefs with evidence where evidence existed. Faith was for areas where there was no evidence. Evolution, for example, is completely accepted by science and there is a vast amount of evidence supporting the concept. The view of my religion was that it described the mechanism that god used.

My world view was formed somewhat in that environment and I studied and learned a great deal both academically and religiously, including about church history and some of the finer points about theology. It was only in the last 20 years or so that I have come to believe that there is no god. If some evidence from cosmology were produced for existence or a requirement for a supernatural force, I could accept it.

What bothers me though, and always has, is when people believe in absolutes without making room for the possibility that they or their teachers could be wrong. I know that is counter to what some sects of various religions teach. But I just cannot respect the thinking processes of someone who thinks in such an absolute sense because they always start making exceptions and they rarely see the contradictions in their own belief system. Killing is absolutely wrong because the commandments say so...but these same people will shoot a Muslim in Afghanistan or support the death penalty. God created the world one way on page 1 of Genesis then did it again in a completely different way a page or two later. I'm sure you can explain that away, and you don't need to, but plenty of actual scholars, many of whom are very religious, accept it for what it is, a montage of two different creation myths.

Anyway, back to the health care law...

"Government" in OT times was the religious leadership so there was no reason to identify that entity as having a separate role. By Roman times, yes, there was in many ways a separate government but it had little direct role in the lives of people until fairly late, certainly not at the time when the bible was written. By 380 the bible was between 350 and several thousand years old. Saying that it completely defined the role of everything is a little like saying that the Mayflower Compact did not mention how wireless spectrum should be allocated so the government should now not be involved in that.

But I know you won't be convinced and I don't really care if you are. I'd just hope that you at least keep an open mind and realize that many of your fellow citizens are capable of thinking about a situation in ways that your own belief system prevents you from doing. I am not saying that your belief system is wrong, only that it is restrictive.



Just because it was founded by religious people does not mean it was intended to give preference for particular values. Many of the early immigrants were fleeing persecution for what we would today consider very minor differences in belief. There was a full scale catholic holocaust happening in Europe. Protestants, Jews, and anyone else questioning the authority of the catholic church was tortured and killed in many areas. So they fled and set up their own areas within Europe and then kept up the tradition by persecuting each other. The followers of John Calvin and Martin Luther did not agree on fundamental issues of theology. The founding fathers recognized that only by keeping the government out of religion could the country succeed. No, the "separation" phrase was not used but the idea is evident in the early writings.



One of the best things about the US Constitution is its flexibility and adaptability to the times. I agree that it has been twisted and manipulated through the years. It has been used to justify many actions we are not proud of now as well. But one thing about it is that almost every change or major interpretation has eventually become accepted by all and usually praised as a great idea. There is probably not a single amendment or supreme court decision more than 25-50 years old that anyone (except maybe legal scholars) now would reverse even though many were unpopular at the time.

Dred Scott.

It's hard to reverse a decision that was essentially invalidated by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

I know, that was in my mind as I typed that. But, you qualify as a legal scholar. I'm not so sure that most Americans would even know anything about Dred Scott, though I bet many on this forum do.

it makes it unnecessary, not hard though.

I'll give you that. I was watching one of those "Jay Walking" type things around the 4th and was amazed at how many people didn't know which country we declared our independence from and some that didn't even know the 4th of July was also called Independence Day.

DUh! Canada.

Okay, I concede that one.

Okay, I'm back to address additional parts of this discussion that I didn't have time to reply to earlier. I said:

And your reply was:

You ran off into a tangent again. Somehow my illustration about the 10 Commandments being codified into our laws and that the HRL being no different turned into your commentary about it being all but banned in the schools. You never really addressed the actual point. If we have laws prohibiting murder and theft, despite the fact that the Bible clearly set this as rules for individual behavior and not a code for regulation by the State, how is the HRL different?

And interestingly enough, you make a point to DH about our laws being based on Christian principles yet for some reason you feel that the HRL shouldn't be enacted by the State, even though it does dovetail very nicely with the verses you quoted about how people should treat each other. Certainly "thou shalt not kill" is part of our systems of laws, yet the Bible does not mention that it should be role of government to enforce that prohibition. Yet no one really objects to that law. How is it different?

More later on your tangent about the US Government being a republic, not a democracy. You're right about that of course, but it's still a tangent.

Well I've been avoiding this thread. Sometimes I get sad and tired of the constant implication that because someone has faith they don’t see things clearly. That faith in God somehow limits a person intellectually or limits one’s credibility. Everyone believes in something. Having faith that God doesn’t exist or that evolution actually occurred takes faith - faith in one’s own understanding of the universe and faith in a theory. I guess my point was that in my opinion countries with foundations/influence of historically Christian values support freedom of religion more than those not founded on those same values.



I don’t believe that people who teach that Jesus is the only way to God could be wrong. I believe the Bible is absolutely true and is the inspired Word of God. However, I believe you have the right to say that my belief system is wrong. That is the beautiful thing about free choice which is a protected right in this country. At least for the time being.

Some funny stuff though with Vintek, bpgui, and DH's comments. Perhaps this thread has been too serious.



But in any case… Back to Healthcare, etc.


Yes, perhaps I do go off on tangents. I suppose I need to be more focused and succinct. Sometimes less is more my wife tells me.


I'm not even sure where to go back and start at. Here it goes:



Yes, I agree the church and families have failed their duty. Therefore government has overstepped its bounds in the U.S. The more the federal government takes over the more freedoms we will give up.



A pure Democracy would be difficult to live in. A Republican democracy, which is what we live in here in the U.S., is a somewhat decent system. You are right. Just because the Bible doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. However, when the Bible mentions it IS the responsibility of family, individuals, and the Church to do something in particular this means the State is a last resort case scenario. The government taking over this role just means we as American citizens have failed our duty. Once again I have a problem with government telling individuals how to live. I agree that the risk is reduced with more contributors.



Once again, we both agree some form of Healthcare Reform needs to take place. My issue is the method this law has used and the degree to which this will impact citizens as well as generations to come.

As to Education: The basic problem with America, which is Education, is the lack of grounded moral principles being taught in schools. Instead, the theory of evolution is taught as fact. Students disrespect their teachers and parents. Students take their education for granted. “Teenagers” are allowed to make decisions regarding their sexuality on their own as they are handed out condoms. And students raise themselves with the help of their peers. The list goes on. Students aren’t taught to respect their teachers, principles, and parents in public schools. They’re not being taught basic principles like taking care of the elderly and assuming responsibility for themselves much less for their own family.

In regard to Social Security... Taking care of the elderly used to be the responsibility of the family unit. I guess too many people weren't being taken care of by their children and so the SS system came into play. Before SS I guess it was expected that people would look after their parents in their old age. Today it seems this is no longer the case with the increase in demand for retirement homes, etc. I suppose also the fact that people were living longer contributed to the need for this system. I'm not sure the SS system will be able to support all the Baby Boomers though. I will be paying for the rest of my adult life into SS and I hope I will be able to actually partake in the benefits if I live that long.

While I agree with the concept of helping others I have seen firsthand what the cost of Medicaid is to tax payers. I live in a low-income neighborhood. People that could work simply choose not to. And yes believe it or not these same people get free medical coverage with our tax dollars.

Let me give you an example: My neighbor smokes a pack (sometimes two) of cigarettes a day. She doesn’t work. She receives a check from the government for each of her kids who are “disabled.” The real issue is she has not taught her kids discipline and they lack male role model involvement. So she gives them meds for their wrong behavior. She gets checks every month from the government for her two children. This pays for the rent, alcohol, cigarettes, and she gets food stamps to help with groceries. Her rent is practically free. When they get too out of control she sends the kids with the help of Medicaid to mental hospitals for weeks on end. So she’s still getting the free checks from the government, the free Medicaid, has no responsibility for her children, and the practically free rent during this time. These are the people that I’m trying to help understand the importance of hard work, having good male role models, budgeting, and saving. Sometimes I just want to throw my hands up and say forget it all. But I remember if I can just help one or two kids get out of this generational pattern than it is all worth it.

Now there are the exceptions where people actually do not have the capacity to support themselves. But that is more the exception (say less than 10-20% from what I've seen actually could not work) than the rule. People just don't want jobs flipping burgers, working in retail, manual labor, etc.

This is a little misleading. You're not the first person I've seen attempting to equate faith in religion with faith in science, but it's a fallacy. Science is founded on something called the "Scientific Method", which is based on systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. It relies on proof and observable evidence, producing repeatable results. Religion, by comparison, is completely flimsy. Nothing can be observed, measured, or tested, and nothing is repeatable. Religion is based entirely on faith, whereas science has a centuries-old foundation of repeatable facts and evidence underpinning it.

To represent evolution (or any other science) as on par with a belief in God as an item of faith is at best simply ignorant, at worst deliberately misleading.

I disagree - I think schools do indeed attempt to teach moral values. The problem is the teachers are powerless to enforce those values, and the parents fail to reinforce them at home. Teachers are hamstrung in their abilities to discipline students, and the students, slowly but surely, have caught on to this fact. Thus they feel invulnerable to real consequences, and instead revel in their (perfectly natural) selfish instincts.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having those instincts - we're born that way. At our core, we're still just animals. But it's our ability to engage in critical thought and elevate our behaviour above pure self-interest that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

When authority figures lose the tools to force children to abandon such primitive selfish motivations, it's only natural that the children will remain in their comfort zone. Thus, the question becomes: whose responsibility is it to force children to behave like intelligent, thoughtful adults, rather than primitive animals? I would argue, the parents.



At the risk of luring you off on another tangent ( ), the verdict has been in on this one for a while. Evolution is a fact. We've seen it in action. We've literally seen new subspecies evolving out of existing ones. It's time to let this one go.

Also - I hope you're sitting down for this - the world is not flat. Galileo had "faith" it was round. Was he factually correct, or do we all simply "believe" the same as Galileo did? That's the difference between science and religion. Fact vs. faith. We don't "believe" the world is round - we know it is. Just as we know evolution is fact. And even if we don't completely understand why certain things are the way they are, it doesn't mean it's not still a fact. For example, we don't fully understand how gravity works (although we did indeed get a little bit closer a few days ago with the discovery of the Higgs Boson), but that doesn't mean it isn't real. It's still just the "Theory" of gravity, and the "Theory" of relativity, and the "Theory" of flight, but all of those things are real, observable, measurable, and repeatable. They're only called "theories" because we don't fully understand why they work. But we can be certain it's not merely the inexplicable workings of an invisible, wrathful sky-man.