Yeah - well I had to kind of lean on John Jay and teh Admas bioys for most of my arguments.
Freaking Jefferson.
Freaking Franklin.
Yeah - well I had to kind of lean on John Jay and teh Admas bioys for most of my arguments.
Freaking Jefferson.
Freaking Franklin.
If I recall it was in the 19th Century that we started to add the "In God We Trust" and "Under God" related stuff. You have to think... many people in the 18th Century dealt with religous persecution. Monarchies proclaimed divine right from god... as in they were under god and endorsed by him... and stomped on anyone that didn't agree. I doubt Americans wanted any religous endorsement of the government.
I also think they expected private individuals to resolve what they should do in order to be good (including charity)... not the government. I don't think Government really had any sort of social programs until the 1930's and 1940's. Heck Income Tax wasn't in the original government plan either... it made money off Tariffs.
In reality this country was founded by landed gentry that owned slaves and wanted less taxes and more financial freedom. I doubt the Founding Fathers would be for health care reform unless it created a market. Social programs and civil rights in this country were started and supported by secular ideals. If Jesus wants to get on board with health care reform great but I doubt a lot of Republicans look at it that way. Right now the Republicans are trying to shore up their elderly base by protecting Medicare from the Democrats which is insane.
complord said:
My nephew who is all of 11 years old and who has lived in Japan most of his life knows that isn't true. The civil rights movement was FAR from secular, complord.
I said started and support by secular ideals. There is no doubt religious figures joined in and helped with the struggle but the genesis was never one of theocratic making.
complord said:
I said started and support by secular ideals. There is no doubt religious figures joined in and helped with the struggle but the genesis was never one of theocratic making.
The civil rights movement was started by proponents of religion using religious ideals - that secular people later joined in on and helped with. I'm actually surprised that this a point of debate, really.
Correlation doesn't equal causation. The civil rights movement in this country was started because of ethnic minorities being persecuted by the government, religious institutions and other organizations. Most religious organizations supported slavery until the very end. The same with Jim Crow laws and segregation. The reason why is that religious leaders, like the Pope, and, most importantly, the Bible supported these claims. Just because some of the people that were involved in the movement were religious doesn't mean it was a religious idea. That is like saying communism is an atheist movement simply because Marx, Engel and most of the communist leaders were atheists. There were religious people on the other side of the equation that fought against the civil rights movement as well. The KKK comes to mind and their movement was partially religiously motivated.
The real question is what does any of the above have to do with health care reform. The Republicans, which usually represent the religious right, are against health care reform because it will raise their taxes to help people in need, or lazy people as they claim. I think if people like Stag Lord started spreading the message that Jesus did indeed support help for the disadvantaged maybe there would be more support for health care reform which would be great. Unfortunately that is not the case.
I found out yesterday that my health insurance rates will increase 17% for the second consecutive year on September 2. I'm pretty sure that jump exceeds inflation by a fair amount, and venturing a guess, I'd say this exceeds any increases in healthcare costs by a healthy margin as well. After the increase, I will spend more than $260 each month on health insurance. In all honesty, this insurance scheme is becoming cost prohibitive--I may have to cancel and look for something that covers me only in the event of a catastrophic accident.
I just use my own personal experience to highlight the disconnect between what I see as a public good and what companies see as a business opportunity. When other people have access to medicine, I am less likely to get sick; when other people are healthier, thinner, and more mobile, I am less inconvenienced riding public transportation, standing in lines, or waiting for them to cross the street. Most importantly, when someone that ordinarily would contribute to society has an accident, they spend the rest of their life paying back debt. This limits their flexibility to relocate jobs that might enhance US economic efficiency, save and invest in ways that boosts market liquidity and economic growth, and contribute to society in other ways. In short, a healthy population is a public good, just like a strong national defense. (If we spend billions of dollars on protecting the lives of people in the United States, it makes sense we would also spend billions protecting their health.)
So to me, the only question about healthcare reform is "what would provide for the public good the best?" Private companies--by definition--are motivated by profit, and my sense is that they will frequently sacrifice the public good for a better bottom line. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a company's need to make a profit. I just don't see why primary health insurance needs to be one of those areas that is serviced by companies. Public utilities, most road and railway infrastructure, schools, police, etc. are all public goods; though private roads, schools, security, etc. exist to supplement the public services if people want to use them, they are by no means necessary.
If this sounds socialist, then so be it. To some degree, every company has socialist policies--the question is just which ones will be socialized and which will remain private sector. I like private markets, I just don't see a place for the current health insurance system in them.
All this said, I recognize that issues of cost make it difficult to cover everyone in the United States, and allowing private companies to operate health insurance programs may promote market-based competition that drives costs down. Right now, this isn't happening, though.
Stag Lord said:
But Jesus' teachings in scripture are quite clear on this point - we all have a duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and tend to the sick. It is my firm conviction that an enlightened adn compassionate society has an obligation to ensure that it is meeting the needs of its citizens.
Stag, I totally agree. But here's the thing, I think when we just pawn the task off on government, not only is it a more wasteful use of resources, but it destroys that sense of personal involvement and charity that we are called to have as Christians. People say, "it's government's job to care for poor Billy, that's what they take my tax dollars for" and they don't get involved.
I mean honestly, when are you more charitable and generous, when you've got your giving set on "autopilot" and deducted monthly, or when you have to deliberately think about it and give of time and talent?
I insist that it is every individual's duty to help those around them, and that it's bad when we allow government to become the scapegoat. When the brother of one of the faculty members at my grad school racked up a huge medical bill (he didn't have insurance), a bunch of us organized a fundraiser trivia night to help cover costs. The local church donated it's hall and beverages, several businesses donated giftcards and prizes, and the end result was a hall packed with nearly 450 people at $15 entry/person.
There ARE all sorts of things government can do to improve healthcare without taking it over or nudging private companies out of the biz, including that they:
1. Allow competition across state lines. Many forget that it was government legislation that imposed a state-by-state system that led to less competition and greater administrative costs. The state-by-state requirements are sometimes barriers to entry into the market by innovative startups.
2. Require the private companies to allow people to carry insurance from job-to-job at the rate they purchased originally (or near it)--at least for a transitional time period (6 months?).
3. Raise the lifetime limit on coverage to reflect inflation and extended lifespans.
complord said:
I said started and support by secular ideals.
And what is the source of the "secular ideals" of which we speak? The French Revolution? I seem to remember a whole lot of people being guillotined during the Reign of Terror (20,000 to 40,000 people, 70% of whom were peasants), including a good number of scientists. There was also that little bit about rounding up priests (by the thousands), tying them to boats, and sinking them all into the river.
Secularism, like religion, is a "pretty big bucket", that includes its own fair share of tragedy, bigotry, and greed. One could even argue that it was secularism which enabled--for the first time--mankind the ability to annihilate the planet. ~Yeah A-Bomb, and the nuclear arsenals (one of which, the USSR's, was purely secular).
Artaban, your fundamental lack of understanding anything involving the rational world is astounding. Even if the French Revolution was a secular movement, which it wasn't, it has nothing on the 2,000 year reign of Christian atrocities. All I have to mention is the Holocaust which the Roman Catholic leadership denied ever happening while at the same time supporting it during Hitler's rule. To this day Hitler has yet to be excommunicated by the Holy See.
Secularism, as you call it, is the rational world. Yes, it is a big bucket, it encompasses the whole Universe and how it actually works.
Onto the points you were rebutting Stag Lord with:
1. You are contradicting your whole 'let the individual states' manage health care. You just proved the point of why that doesn't work.
2. This is called COBRA and it's very expensive. I was on it for 6+ months when I became unemployed and it was a humiliating experience.
3. How about just get rid of lifetime limits?
Complord, the Roman Catholic leadership has not denied the Holocaust ever happened. You might want to watch a Gregory Peck movie called "The Scarlet and the Black"--the true story of how the Church set up a vast underground network to smuggle refugees and other individuals being persecuted by the Nazis to safety. They did this at great risk, while the SS was essentially laying siege to the Vatican City and waiting for a pretense to exercise martial law over it.
1. There's no contradiction in my statement. Where did I ever say anything along the lines of "let the individual states manage healthcare"?
Nowhere. I really can't figure you out; is it that you are persisting in a relentless effort to put words in my mouth and distort my position, or do you really lack the ability to understand a basic sentence?
I did say I believe the citizens of a state have the right to collectively decide to create a healthcare system in their state--not because I believe it would be beneficial, but because I believe in democracy. That's an entirely different thing from providing an endorsement of state managed healthcare in itself (something I have not and would not give).
2. Again, you seem unable to hold the thread of a single argument in your head. COBRA is not synonymous with my proposal in #2, because, as you pointed out, its cost is far above the normal insurance premium from a person's previous job. Reread my statement: "Require the private companies to allow people to carry insurance from job-to-job at the rate they purchased originally (or near it) --at least for a transitional time period (6 months?)"
Stated in other words, for the feebleminded, if I am paying a $60/month insurance premium, then lose my job, rather than having to pay a vastly inflated premium with COBRA ($200? $400?), my proposal is that I should be able to pay $60-$70 (a 10% increase seems very fair) for a period of time until I've obtained a new job.
But let's back the train up for a second. You thought COBRA was "very expensive" and found the experience with it "humiliating". So what you're saying is that you were unhappy with COBRA (the acronym for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act,
a 1986 federal law
), which was an example of the gov't stepping in to try and improve healthcare, and yet you trust the government to get things right this time around. I think we all know the old adage about stupidity...
And FYI, under federal law, what you were paying for COBRA was equal to your premium cost before, it's just that instead of the company you worked for picking up the lion's share of the cost, you were now paying your part of the premium, theirs, and potentially a 2% administrative fee. My family's small business had to move from paying the entire premium to only paying 50% in 2005, when the cost to provide health insurance for our oldest employee rose to $817/month. Your experience with COBRA should make you sympathetic to the incredible burdens private businesses have been shouldering on behalf of their workers.
complord said:
Why would you expect the Roman Catholic Church to excommunicate a self-proclaimed pagan who specifically rejected both Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular?
1. You were complaining that each state has its own rules when it comes to health care which goes against your stance that states should be in charge of their own health care reform. When you start letting smaller communities have more power that is the sort of situation you come up with and if you aren't happy with it maybe you should understand the position you are coming from better.
2. I think COBRA is a good thing but is hardly a solution to uninsured people between jobs. What I find mystifying is you complain about bloated health care premiums but are against reform? What exactly is your stance? Let me guess, the opposite of whatever Obama is proposing because you are myopic. Also, what you are paying with COBRA is what your employer is paying. You are still getting a deal relatively speaking since you aren't getting a plan directly from the insurance company which would be much more.
3. I also notice you have no rebuttal to me abolishing lifetime premiums.
Artaban, before you discuss health care reform any further I suggest you educate yourself on exactly what you are talking about. Your commentary on these forums are showing a lack of understanding of what we are discussing. Look at the WHO rankings for health care by country and then look at the costs as a percentage of GDP for industrialized nations with socialized medicine. You will see that your stance against universal health care holds no water.
On to the Roman Catholic tangent. I promise I will make it brief and painless. I appreciate some of you on these boards are Catholics but that doesn't change history just because you believe the Church wouldn't do horrible things. Pius XII was Pope during WWII. He never condemmed the Holocaust while it was happening and gave aid sparingly to the oppressed. He kept diplomatic ties with Italy and German leading up to and during the war and supplied Vatican passports for high ranking Nazi officials (most of which were involved in the Final Solution) and secured safed passage to Latin America. None of these facts are in dispute, look them up yourself.
Hitler himself was a Catholic plain and simple. Maybe not the most devout but you could argue that he was considering his actions during the war. He praised Jesus as the first Aryan and learned his anti-semitism from Christian teachings. He was on good terms with both the Catholic and Protestant church during the war mainly because he allowed the mandatory church tax and teaching of Christianity in Germany. He was not into the occult or other things you may have seen in the movies. I'm sorry, but these facts are there for you to see and if you don't agree then you disagree with history.
One last thing. I assume you agree Artaban, since you lack a reubttal, that the French Revolution was a revolution against the aristocracy, which some of them were religious leaders (notably the royalty), and not a secular movement. Try learning history before distorting it.
complord said:
You missed the point of my question. The idea behind excommunication is to make it clear to the individual that their actions are so sinful as to separate them from the rest of the community of the faithful. The primary goal is to inspire regret and remorse in the excommunicated individual, not to make the rest of the community feel or look better through distance and separation from that person. So excommunicating Hitler, particularly posthumously, wouldn't serve any real purpose.
Hitler was a nominal Catholic at best, relating to the fact that he was raised by a Catholic mother and his need to project a particular image as the head of a very Christian country. His public and private statements regarding religion vary widely throughout his political career but one can hardly look at his views of allegiance to state above allegiance to God and say that here was a man for whom religion was a driving factor in his life. I am not trying to deny Hitler's Catholic background, nor am I trying to deny the mess of WWII-era Vatican politics. I'm just trying to figure out what an excommunication of Hitler, or a lack thereof, is supposed to prove.
ktom said:
You missed the point of my question.
I disagree. Your question was laced with untruths. You stated that Hitler was a self-professed pagan which he wasn't. You also stated he denounced Christianity as a whole and Catholicism specifically which is also not true. I was trying to point out that he was indeed a Catholic as most people would call themselves at that time and that he embraced some Catholic principles. The reason why excommunication would seem relevant to Hitler and his cadre is that Pius XII excommunicated all Catholic communists since most communist leaders were atheists at the time and sometimes imposed harsh laws against believers and religious institutions. That seems like a small crime compared to the extermination of 6 million people and a war that killed many more.
You are simplifying this issue to make your point, complord.
Hitler was a Catholic in name only. My extensive study of the time has covnicned me that he had little to no interest in spritual matters. His only comments on religion were purely for political purposes. I can commend a couple fo excellent studies to confirm this analysis;
Ron Rosenvbaum's: Explaining Hitler: http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Hitler-Search-Origins-Evil/dp/006095339X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251814650&sr=8-1
John Toland (one of my afvorite authors of all time): Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-Definitive-John-Toland/dp/0385420536/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251814681&sr=1-2
And of course, Shirer's sweeping: Rise and Fall f=of the Thrid Reich : http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/0671728687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251814773&sr=1-1
All contain in depth, in some cases first ahdn analysis of Hitler's malignant personality - and all are veyr persuasive that hte man had no religious feelings to speak of. His concern was germany and his own power - period.
As to the Vatican: recall that they were a surrounded enclave in an Axis capital and there was virtually nothing they could do politically against fascism, save at the expense of their very exisitence. Could they issue a denconcemtnafter the war. Of course - and its regretatble that they did not.
Now - cna we resume the discussion of the releavnt issue at hand?
Stag Lord said:
Sorry for starting the tangent. Leaving aside the discussion of WWII Vatican politics (because complord is correct; Pius XII had some odd and deep ties to the German politics of the day) there is one last thing:
Why I started asking about it was that complord said "" To this day Hitler has yet to be excommunicated by the Holy See" in a context that seemed to equate the ongoing failure to excommunicate Hitler with "Christian atrocities" through history. It looks like a "guilt by association" argument, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that such an argument was not what he was going for. So I'm trying to figure out what a modern excommunication of someone who has been dead for over 60 years (and really would not have cared when he was alive) is supposed to prove one way or the other. Complord seems to be answering that he was trying to say it was a failing, and an inconsistency, of Pius XII's WWII Vatican politics more than a modern failing of today's Church. If that is true, it was not at all clear from the original statement.
On the actual healthcare topic, it seems to have devolved into "you don't know what you're talking about" and thinly-veiled-to-blatant statements about where people fall on the myopic-to-stupid spectrum. Maybe it's time to start a new thread on a specific aspect of the current healthcare reform? Or about if universal healthcare is really a viable solution for the US and how, if at all, the current reform approach gets us any closer to that?
~ Anyway, isn't there a web-rule that if any topic goes on long enough, it will eventually come around to Hitler? And when it does, it is time to close the thread?
Stag Lord, we must agree to disagree as is the usual case with our discussions
.
Kevin, as always you articulate why I cannot when it comes to my points and I give thanks.
I don't mean to be so harsh but I'm sick of rebutting questions that have been answered multiple times already. On the other maybe the tangent occured because there isn't anywhere else to go concerning health care reform discussion. It seems like most people agree that it is needed and mostly agree where the reform needs to be targeted. The only complaint I have is that the Democrats lost the narrative and are starting to lose a battle that seemed like a sure thing. Also, why isn't single payer health care on the table.
complord said:
See, now that's a good question. Beyond the fact that it would be a change of such huge and sweeping magnitude as to frighten people regarding how painful the implementation transition would be (regardless of the eventual benefit), it might also be too reminiscent of the Clinton health proposal of 1992/93. Now granted, the Clinton plan was for universal coverage, not a single payer, but the two are often associated. It could very well be a matter of either "baby steps" or perception.
complord said:
Thanks.
Plus Matt Taibbi reprots in a recent Rolling Stone column that single payer came of the table back in March - when the White Hosue cut a deal with the big pharmaceutical industry. In return for shelving any discussion of a single payer option, Big Pharme agreed to support the Demcratic plan and they have pumped somehting like 20 million dollars into ad dollars for teh campaign.
I still have grave doubts that goverenment funded, universal healthcare will not work in a nation of 300 million.
Stag Lord said:
I'm having trouble interpreting the "grave doubts that it will not work" statement. Are you trying to say you think it could work if done right, or that you doubt it can work in the first place?
Sorry - porrly worded. i doubt that it will work at all. Given the size of our population, I don't think the comaprisons to western europe and Canada are applicable.
Stag Lord said:
And certainly not without a significant tax increase (not necessarily a bad thing, but certainly something that nearly equates to "evil" in most US thought patterns).
I don't understand why the size of our population matters at all. Like I said earlier we are talking percentages and not total dollar amounts. If you can explain the math to me I will gladly abdicate. Taxes will be raised of course because we can't cut into any other programs like bailing out corrupt businesses, obscene military spending and of course wars.