[itistoday]

ebuddy, sorry for the delay in my response, I have a lot on my plate right now, I'll respond soon hopefully. Just letting you know I haven't forgotten your reply.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd rather this administration get started on correcting this problem than leave things the way they are now. If there are things about the implementation that I don't like, I can always hold out hope that a future administration will help correct them. I firmly believe that the system we have in place now is broken and needs to be corrected. I just don't know that there is a solution that involves private for-profit health insurance companies.

You and I both know that this will NEVER happen no matter who is in office. The Politicians need to grease the pockets of their lobbyists and contributors. They pay lip service to the American people telling us they want to fix it but that is all it is.

[itistoday]

I finally have some free time to respond. BTW, if you ever feel inclined to "agree to disagree" just let me know because I'm becoming tired of this topic, but not tired enough to lose by default through non-participation.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not enough to simply throw money at people. People can and do use money unwisely. That's the entire premise of my argument. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Americans spend 10% of their income on entertainment and eating out and 5% on health care.

If that's the crux of your argument we can lay it to rest here, I assure you I'm not suggesting that we "throw money at people" nor do I disagree with you when you say that people don't know how to spend their money.

Universal Healthcare does not involve throwing money at people. The core concept is very simple: if you are sick and need to see a doctor, you can do so without hassle and without having to take out your wallet or call your insurance company for permission.

It's even less sensible to me that we would ask for a gigantic government bureaucracy to handle our health care for us when all we have to do is govern our spending a little more wisely in consideration of what we claim is so important to us.

"all we have to do is govern our spending a little more wisely"... Right. I don't know what you mean to accomplish in saying that. Sure, I agree, it'd be nice if people spent their money more wisely.

You asked if these outlets pay for "all" the medical treatment these people need? Do they pay for surgeries, medication, etc? Do they pay for all kinds of surgeries or only certain types?
The quick answer is no, but neither does universal health care. There are certain surgeries, treatments, and medications that the governments of those enjoying universal care will not have paid for. This notion that you simply present your universal card no matter what the issue and have full coverage is woefully mistaken.

While there most likely are elective procedures that are not easy to get immediately, all life threatening illnesses are treated. For those procedures that are not as easy to get "just by showing your universal card", there will be a separate system established to handle those, no doubt one that would require you to pay extra, or one that would require you to get private insurance specifically set up to pay for elective procedures. I have no problem with such optional insurance companies, the problem comes in when your ability to get treatment for a terminal or serious illness is hampered, or when said treatment forces you to sell everything you own and move in with your children.

You're expecting standards no one can meet. Least of which, a government entity providing health care.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Many countries have universal healthcare systems that do a great job. Sure, they are not without their problems, but they do not all have the same problems either. They have different problems for different reasons, and it is certainly possible to address them. If you're arguing that a good universal healthcare system is impossible then you are simply ignoring reality.

Efficiency is what we're talking about here. Again, the US pays more per student than any other industrialized nation yet ranks 18th among them. More money is not the answer. More money is not the solution. We're already spending more than the industrialized nations on our health care also and I'm assuming you're not happy with how your tax dollar has manifest there or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

What you say makes perfect sense. I agree, not only should the government create a universal healthcare system, but it should be an efficient one as well. Our current system of privatized healthcare is by no means an exemplary model of efficiency. What's more efficient, having to call your insurance company to sift through papers to see if you're allowed to have a certain procedure, or to simply go and get that procedure? A universal healthcare system would greatly reduce the amount of bureaucracy that exists within the current system.

There are a host of reasons people are without health care and more often than is recognized in this forum, it's not always a matter of money. Many are between jobs and literally millions qualify for health care and don't have it. Most are under 25 years old and too often while they are covered under their parent's plans, because they're not at home they're considered uncovered. The stats on the uninsured in this country are severely bloated and too often to not account for simple choice. A choice we have in the US. Choices you will not find elsewhere.

I fail to see your point. If someone does not have health insurance and becomes severely ill they will most likely be in a very precarious situation. The "choice" of whether or not you will be given treatment for your life-threatening illness is not a choice most people want. Even in a universal healthcare system you have the choice of not going to the hospital. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Unfortunately, nation-wide public education is failing hands-down compared to private schooling. There are many reasons for this up to and including more parental involvement and private schools doing a more effective job of soliciting parental help as well as being held more accountable for failure by those paying fees for service.

Like I said, I attended an excellent public school. There were many good public schools in the area where I grew up. Your claim that privatized schools are fundamentally superior in some way is quite contentious, and in my opinion simply devoid of reality. I disagree with you for many reasons, including ones that have not been mentioned, that private schools are inherently better. In fact I would argue that public schools have inherent virtues that fundamentally could not be upheld in a privatized educational system. Quick examples: private schools are inherently discriminatory against different ethnic groups and people of different religious beliefs, public schools can all be forced to respect the same rules of religious tolerance, public schools can all be held to the same quality standards, etc. I doubt very much that anything you could say would convince me otherwise, this is a basic fundamental flaw of privatized education.

- The Major International Health Organizations

I was able to find only one example there. You're going to have to do better than that. How about a chart or graph of some sort? I'm sure that if I was willing to spend the time I could conjure up a counter example of a government run organization being more efficient than a privately run one. Then again, I'm also of the opinion that some institutions belong in the hands of the government, and others in the hands of the private industry. The public library system, the various police, fire rescue, the educational system, etc. Your second link is an example of this.

- http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z

Something like an airline should be run by private companies, I'm not in the least surprised if it was more efficient. A healthcare system should be concerned with people's lives, not profit. Insurance companies have entire investigative departments dedicated to finding obscure reasons to deny people coverage. In 'Sicko' one of the women who worked in one these departments said that they were told that the person who was able to save the most amount of money in this manner would be promoted (or given some other reward).

- Login

An error has occurred, or access is not allowed to this resource. If you believe that you should have access to this resource, please try again later, or contact customer service.

- FaxSheet December 1995: A Compassion Tax Credit

Eh... I skimmed over this, didn't really try to understand it, it doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. You're trying to make the argument that all government institutions are inefficient compared to private ones. I just don't agree and I've given examples where the government does a good job. I'm even willing to give you welfare because I don't know much about it and don't care to spend the time learning about it. None of this matters to my argument that profit should not be a factor in life and death.

States have to blow money to continue getting money. Private institutions are held to higher account by those who fund it.

Private institutions (in this case insurance companies) have demonstrated they are incapable of being compassionate when it comes to matters of health. Those people who you refer to are called investors, and all that they want is to see a high return on their investment. Private companies are interested in increasing profits, and they do this in many ways. When you're denied your life because of this it becomes a problem.

Can you cite some examples, links please? I've been severely poor and I had full comprehensive health care. I've been middle class and have had full comprehensive care. I'm now upper-middle and have full comprehensive health care. Again, with discounted rates, free services, medicare, medicaid, HSAs, and a host of other programs, charities, and health organizations there is no reason to be without care. Once again, there are millions who are eligible for health care and don't have it. Why?

You're right, what was it, 45 million people without healthcare? I'm sure they have a variety of different reasons, I'm not about to guess. In the movie Moore demonstrates how middle-class people who thought they had full coverage were told they did not, that this procedure would not be paid for, etc. One woman was denied treatment for cancer because several years earlier she had mistakenly filled out a form about a yeast infection she had. Another woman was told her husband could not get an experimental treatment for his cancer and her husband died because his insurance company would not pay for the treatment. A woman who worked for one of these insurance companies testified in front of congress tearfully telling a story about how she was encouraged to kill people (deny them treatment) and because of her success in doing so for one particular contentious case was promoted and given a massive raise. A father was told that his boy could only receive treatment on one of his ears, not the other, and no good reason was given. After his father sent a letter to the company saying he would tell his story to Michael Moore the company agreed to treat the other ear. Another woman was told she couldn't receive treatment for her brain tumor, she went to Japan and was treated and the tumor removed, she then sued her insurance company and won (if I remember correctly). There were many examples given in the movie of insurance company employees quitting their jobs out of guilt. See a pattern? If private insurance companies can save money then your life and your problems do not matter to them.

Over 100,000 people die every year because of health care. Did you know this? Again, it's not enough to say _______ people die. People are supposed to die. Not to sound cold, but how many thousands die due to vehicle accidents, ham sandwiches, golf clubs, and baseball bats? How many people die because they don't go to the hospital when they feel chest pain? How many people die because they had unprotected sex? How many people die because they didn't look both ways before crossing the streets. You might know, 18,000 by any comparison you wish to use, is an extremely small number.

It's the concept that matters, and it's not just the number of deaths incurred, it's also the number of lives ruined. Moore gave an example of an elderly middle-class family forced to sell all their possessions and move into a room in their children's home because of the costs of their health insurance premiums and deductibles and all that jazz after they suffered several accidents. In a universal healthcare system this would not happen.

If you were genuinely curious about any of this; "Or does he not matter because the heretic is going to burn in hell for eternity anyway?" is a really disingenuous way of going about it. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to present serious arguments. This is quite clearly the result of a chip and no genuine interest in anything other than digging at someone who happens to have a philosophical world-view that differs from your own. Ironically, I'm guessing you believe Christians are the template of intolerance and persecution.

You talk as if I don't know **** about Christian doctrine. While I haven't buried myself in it, I have studied it a bit, and I do know enough to get the gist of it. You're right, I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder, but it is directed at only those evangelical, stupid, and intolerant Christians that I have seen. I know that there are many Christians, like yourself, who are level-headed and intelligent, and I have friends among them, so no... I don't believe that all Christians are the template of intolerance and persecution, but some Christians, just like some Catholics, some Jews, most Nazis, some atheists, and George W. Bush certainly would make wonderful templates.

You mean you're admittedly "limited" exposure.

(Limited exposure to Christian bake-offs and events) != (limited exposure to Christian beliefs or Christians themselves.)

... and neither do you. In fact, you're not even following your own principles with your line of questioning. I think a little introspect is in order. For someone who doesn't buy into religion, you certainly hold them in high regard with your expectations. This is why I ask what your moral authority is. Apparently, it doesn't have any more weight than a god.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph. First, whether or not I personally follow any moral code is irrelevant to my pointing out Christian hypocrisy. Secondly, I do not buy into the *Christian* religion, I do, however, have a soft spot in my heart for 'religions' such as Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism (religion in quotes because from a Christian perspective they are not).

Absolutely not. I would be first in line to address them one on one and challenge them on their legalism. It would take me 5 minutes and a Bible to have them crying in their combat boots. They're certainly not following any biblical principle with the above, least of which the teachings of Christ. There are all types anywhere from green-peace rallies in which violence breaks out leaving hundreds of pounds of litter and waste in their midst to gay rallies in which Christianity is mocked ignorantly. This does not mean I hold homosexuals in low regards because of a vocal minority among them. Enlightenment is understanding the diversity of human nature and discerning right from wrong, not right from left.

I'm happy to hear this from you, it would please me greatly to witness you school one of those nutcases at their own game. These people mostly rely on these statements from Jesus: "I am the the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but through Me." I was going to argue that it seems quite clear that this is arguing the supremacy of the Christian faith, but then I discovered this. Is that the line of argument you would take?

I disagree and have a wealth of history and data to support my claim.

Your data does not apply to this discussion. Airlines are not healthcare systems. And Christian charities exist only because some people do not have healthcare coverage. In a universal healthcare system profit would not be a factor in matters of health and everyone would be covered. If I haven't said a single thing to change your mind or your thoughts about any part of the debate then let's just agree to disagree.

[thefirstclue]

Spamtastic!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

If that's the crux of your argument we can lay it to rest here, I assure you I'm not suggesting that we "throw money at people" nor do I disagree with you when you say that people don't know how to spend their money.Universal Healthcare does not involve throwing money at people. The core concept is very simple: if you are sick and need to see a doctor, you can do so without hassle and without having to take out your wallet or call your insurance company for permission.

... without hassle and without taking out your wallet? This is not always the case in universal systems and the opposite is not always true of the US system. I believe those who tout universal care have a euphoric idea of how it works, while holding a tragic and painful ideal of how our system works. It just doesn't work that way.

"all we have to do is govern our spending a little more wisely"... Right. I don't know what you mean to accomplish in saying that. Sure, I agree, it'd be nice if people spent their money more wisely.

I wasn't clear enough. IMO, this only occurs from the top-down.

While there most likely are elective procedures that are not easy to get immediately, all life threatening illnesses are treated.

I'm glad you mentioned elective surgeries. Let's look at a couple of examples of what is considered elective in Canada;
- all Cancer surgeries
- Bypass operations regardless of degree of blockage (unless you're actually having a heart attack)

For those procedures that are not as easy to get "just by showing your universal card", there will be a separate system established to handle those, no doubt one that would require you to pay extra, or one that would require you to get private insurance specifically set up to pay for elective procedures.

Sounds exactly like the US system itistoday. Life threatening illnesses are treated here regardless of ability to pay. For the ones that aren't easily covered under any number of various programs in the US, there are separate systems established to handle those and some that would require you pay a portion.

I have no problem with such optional insurance companies, the problem comes in when your ability to get treatment for a terminal or serious illness is hampered. I disagree wholeheartedly. Many countries have universal healthcare systems that do a great job. Sure, they are not without their problems, but they do not all have the same problems either. They have different problems for different reasons, and it is certainly possible to address them. If you're arguing that a good universal healthcare system is impossible then you are simply ignoring reality.

They have different problems just as our system has different problems. I'm not sure the answer is to nationalize our health care while those systems continue courting privatization. In larger countries, they are unable to keep up and provinces are going without significant portions of funding promised them to meet their needs. Invoking the other smaller countries as an example of those who "do a good job" and comparing them to this nation is no less sensible then comparing privately owned businesses to public endeavors in efficiency.

What you say makes perfect sense. I agree, not only should the government create a universal healthcare system, but it should be an efficient one as well. Our current system of privatized healthcare is by no means an exemplary model of efficiency. What's more efficient, having to call your insurance company to sift through papers to see if you're allowed to have a certain procedure, or to simply go and get that procedure? A universal healthcare system would greatly reduce the amount of bureaucracy that exists within the current system.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen the tax code? Since when does the government conduct business under less bureaucracy? I don't buy it. I've already explained why a government entity cannot be efficient. It is bloated, spends money to get money, changes too many hands, and too many conflicting interests to protect the trust against being raided for a host of any unrelated reasons. Social Security and Public education are two examples of this fact.

I fail to see your point. If someone does not have health insurance and becomes severely ill they will most likely be in a very precarious situation. The "choice" of whether or not you will be given treatment for your life-threatening illness is not a choice most people want. Even in a universal healthcare system you have the choice of not going to the hospital. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

You're in a precarious situation either way. That's what I'm trying to say.

Like I said, I attended an excellent public school. There were many good public schools in the area where I grew up.

This is anecdotal. Statistics do not reflect this on a nation-wide scale though I'm happy you had a good experience.

Your claim that privatized schools are fundamentally superior in some way is quite contentious, and in my opinion simply devoid of reality.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but unfortunately the facts reflect quite a different "reality" than the one you're espousing.

In fact I would argue that public schools have inherent virtues that fundamentally could not be upheld in a privatized educational system.

You might argue it, but you won't have any facts to back that claim.

Quick examples: private schools are inherently discriminatory against different ethnic groups and people of different religious beliefs

Wrong. There are independant schools, charter schools, proprietary schools, and parochial schools. In the case of parochial schools, children are not required to be the particular religion of the school, but religious instruction is part of class. In this case, you have a wealth of other options as mentioned above. There are a great many private/parochial schools that pro-rate tuition based on income for those earning less. The US is #2 in spending per student, #9 among industrialized nations in education. Below average mathematics, low college graduation rate and institutionalized inequality exacerbated by deviating curriculum to the lowest common denominator. Private school children are superior academically and the systems are able to spend much less per student. This is fact. There are more facts to counter your claim such as;
- Private schools produce an annual savings to taxpayers estimated at more than $48,000,000,000
- Private school students perform better than their public school counterparts on standardized achievement tests
- Ninety percent of private high school graduates attend college, compared to 66 percent of public high school graduates
- Private school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more than three times more likely than comparable public school students to attain a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s, meaning that private schools contribute to breaking the cycle of poverty for their students;
- Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000
- Private secondary school students are nearly 50 percent more likely to take AP or IB courses in science and math than public school students
- The participation of private school students in community service projects is significantly higher than their public school counterparts

public schools can all be forced to respect the same rules of religious tolerance, public schools can all be held to the same quality standards, etc. I doubt very much that anything you could say would convince me otherwise, this is a basic fundamental flaw of privatized education.

This is a fundamental flaw of misinformation IMO. Public schools cannot all be held to the same quality and in fact are not. Any statistics on inner-city schools would quickly and easily dispell that myth. Public school kids will respect differences to the same degree that private school kids will. Life can be cruel to children in the public schools who can't afford to dress like their wealthier counterparts exacerbating inequality out of the gate. The public system is not outfitted any better with regard to racial or socio-economic sensitivities than any other "for-profit" entity is. In fact, having been denied the ability to go to the school right down the street because I wasn't the right color I can attest to some racial issues for sure.

I was able to find only one example there. You're going to have to do better than that. How about a chart or graph of some sort? I'm sure that if I was willing to spend the time I could conjure up a counter example of a government run organization being more efficient than a privately run one.

... but for now my examples aren't enough? You want charts and graphs, but you'll bring nothing to the table at all to support your claim? You're going to have to do better than that indeed. The links I gave you represent data that offers the most readily-available, direct comparisons between public and private entities.

Then again, I'm also of the opinion that some institutions belong in the hands of the government, and others in the hands of the private industry. The public library system, the various police, fire rescue, the educational system, etc. Your second link is an example of this.

I believe fire rescue and police are necessary as the civil appartus and in fact we're paying quite dearly for them. One could argue whether or not we're getting our money's worth. Here locally, the fund has been depleted to the point where we're now considering reducing our fire department by 25%. On an engine of four, that's taking one away. Why? The funds have been mismanaged and now we're in panic mode with how to pay the pensions of the soon-to-retire class group.

Something like an airline should be run by private companies, I'm not in the least surprised if it was more efficient. A healthcare system should be concerned with people's lives, not profit. Insurance companies have entire investigative departments dedicated to finding obscure reasons to deny people coverage. In 'Sicko' one of the women who worked in one these departments said that they were told that the person who was able to save the most amount of money in this manner would be promoted (or given some other reward).

Because of fraud of course. The CHCAA is the Canadian Health Care Anti-Fraud Association which does the same thing. Are members of this organization promoted for doing their job well? I'm guessing so, but it would be pretty hard to have more than he-said/she-said to rely on in measuring this phenomena right?

Eh... I skimmed over this, didn't really try to understand it, it doesn't seem relevant to our discussion. You're trying to make the argument that all government institutions are inefficient compared to private ones. I just don't agree and I've given examples where the government does a good job. I'm even willing to give you welfare because I don't know much about it and don't care to spend the time learning about it. None of this matters to my argument that profit should not be a factor in life and death.

Profit has become an evil word to you and I'm sorry for this. IMO the issue is cost, not profit. If government is doing a "good job" in your opinion regarding the services for which you've touted their skills, private businesses are doing an even "better job". "Good job" doesn't mean anything. There are measurements for these attributes and all measurements that compare the two show a favorite.

Private institutions (in this case insurance companies) have demonstrated they are incapable of being compassionate when it comes to matters of health. Those people who you refer to are called investors, and all that they want is to see a high return on their investment. Private companies are interested in increasing profits, and they do this in many ways. When you're denied your life because of this it becomes a problem.

Again, a lot of emotional appeal using words like "compassion", "good job", and "denied your life because of this", but none of this means anything. Your notion that government is somehow more compassionate and holds humanity in higher regard than the bottom line is naive at best. Costs and how to meet them will always be a factor and when it comes down to it, no one is more or less compassionate than the other.

You're right, what was it, 45 million people without healthcare? I'm sure they have a variety of different reasons, I'm not about to guess.

You don't have to, I've already broken it down. The number is severely bloated and does not take into account the fact that most are under 25 covered not under their own plan, but their parents while in school, and does not take into account job migration and a host of other reasons people are not insured including simply not wanting to be insured. This also does not take into account the millions that are eligible for medicare/medicaid and yet remain unenrolled. I've asked about this anomoly no less than 5 times in this thread and have yet to get a reply.

In the movie Moore demonstrates how middle-class people who thought they had full coverage were told they did not, that this procedure would not be paid for, etc. One woman was denied treatment for cancer because several years earlier she had mistakenly filled out a form about a yeast infection she had. Another woman was told her husband could not get an experimental treatment for his cancer and her husband died because his insurance company would not pay for the treatment. A woman who worked for one of these insurance companies testified in front of congress tearfully telling a story about how she was encouraged to kill people (deny them treatment) and because of her success in doing so for one particular contentious case was promoted and given a massive raise. A father was told that his boy could only receive treatment on one of his ears, not the other, and no good reason was given. After his father sent a letter to the company saying he would tell his story to Michael Moore the company agreed to treat the other ear. Another woman was told she couldn't receive treatment for her brain tumor, she went to Japan and was treated and the tumor removed, she then sued her insurance company and won (if I remember correctly). There were many examples given in the movie of insurance company employees quitting their jobs out of guilt. See a pattern? If private insurance companies can save money then your life and your problems do not matter to them.

Anecdotal appeals to emotion are fun. There's the case of a Canadian with a suspected brain tumor who had to wait four months for an MRI. Instead, he crossed the border to the U.S and got it in two days. He then faced another four month wait just to see a specialist in order to schedule surgery which would represent yet another wait. Instead, he had the tumor removed in the U.S. - immediately. It turned out to be early stage brain cancer. A woman, who, unable to urinate, needed to have a pacemaker-type device implanted to control her bladder. Unfortunately, the hospital arbitrarily rationed the operation by doing only one per month. Janice was number 32 on the list - nearly a three year wait. She ended up waiting so long that she developed life-threatening infections, had to have her bladder removed in an emergency procedure, and will now wear a urine bag for the rest of her life. Another woman who was suffering from a near total blockage of her mesenteric artery which feeds blood to the bowels was slowly starving and risked death by waiting in Canada. She came to Bellingham, Washington where she got her life-saving operation immediately. Good thing she had enough money. What about the people who don't have money to travel? They just die waiting? This is compassionate for sure. In 2003, a woman died while waiting more than two years for elective cardiac bypass surgery. A study was released by doctors at Glasgow University showing that 464,000 deaths had been caused over the last 30 years by the NHS in Scotland and that "the vast majority of people - around 250,000 - who died due to inadequate or delayed treatment were heart or stroke patients".

Continued in next post...

[ebuddy]

It's the concept that matters, and it's not just the number of deaths incurred, it's also the number of lives ruined. Moore gave an example of an elderly middle-class family forced to sell all their possessions and move into a room in their children's home because of the costs of their health insurance premiums and deductibles and all that jazz after they suffered several accidents. In a universal healthcare system this would not happen.

There are casualties under any system. A book written details the Canadian health care problem by describing it as a power-hungry industry; medical doctors, pharmaceutical companies, health bureaucrats, and hospital administrators enshrine mediocrity at the expense of patients. Mistakes, inefficiency, and malpractice in the Canadian health system may be causing ten times or more unnecessary deaths a year than the toll from traffic accidents and crime. Also of note from another book; "... public health officials who refused to take the "homosexual plague" seriously; the Red Cross, which worried about bad publicity and the bottom line; the too-little-too-late government that offered inadequate compensation for victims; and the arrogant medical establishment which sometimes took years to inform HIV patients of their condition; and most of all, the victims, who are paying for this betrayal with their lives." For over a decade, bureaucratic dithering, profits-over-protection responses, a paternalistic medical establishment and uninformed victims combined to create the worst health-care disaster in Canadian history. More than 1,200 people have contracted AIDS from tainted blood -- and the dying continues. In a system you tout for not concerning itself with profit, why are so many books authored about the profit problem in the Canadian health care system?

You talk as if I don't know **** about Christian doctrine. While I haven't buried myself in it, I have studied it a bit, and I do know enough to get the gist of it. You're right, I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder, but it is directed at only those evangelical, stupid, and intolerant Christians that I have seen.

Evangelical Christians are not by this virtue, stupid and intolerant. Again, I find it wholly ironic when an "enlightened one of tolerance" such as yourself can be guilty of such sweeping generalizations.

I know that there are many Christians, like yourself, who are level-headed and intelligent, and I have friends among them, so no... I don't believe that all Christians are the template of intolerance and persecution, but some Christians, just like some Catholics, some Jews, most Nazis, some atheists, and George W. Bush certainly would make wonderful templates.

Human nature is what it is. It is often important to view things in terms of right or wrong, not right or left.

There are many things wrong with this paragraph. First, whether or not I personally follow any moral code is irrelevant to my pointing out Christian hypocrisy.

I disagree. How is one to measure your degree of adherence to your principles?

Secondly, I do not buy into the *Christian* religion, I do, however, have a soft spot in my heart for 'religions' such as Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism (religion in quotes because from a Christian perspective they are not).

I am a Christian. The above are philosophies generally, not religions. Again, the generalizations are not serving to indicate how enlightened you are.

I'm happy to hear this from you, it would please me greatly to witness you school one of those nutcases at their own game.

There are two problems with this premise and it stems from the first statement you made in this post; "...but not tired enough to lose by default through non-participation." IMO, one should not relegate the discussion of ideals to a boxing match in which there are winners and losers. Especially considering that neither of us has convinced the other of the merits of our views. The second problem is the use of "nutcases" to define those who do not think like you.

These people mostly rely on these statements from Jesus: "I am the the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, but through Me." I was going to argue that it seems quite clear that this is arguing the supremacy of the Christian faith, but then I discovered this. Is that the line of argument you would take?

Haven't given that a whole lot of thought to be honest. Would it shock you to hear a Christian say that the only way to get to the Father of the Christian faith is through Christianity; through Jesus? Christianity is a faith, take it or leave it. Those who want to be in favor with the Christian God as detailed in Christian Scripture will be interested in hearing how to get to Him. This is through Jesus. Those who do not should not concern themselves with these concepts any more than I would be offended for not having found favor with Zeus.

Your data does not apply to this discussion. Airlines are not healthcare systems. And Christian charities exist only because some people do not have healthcare coverage. In a universal healthcare system profit would not be a factor in matters of health and everyone would be covered. If I haven't said a single thing to change your mind or your thoughts about any part of the debate then let's just agree to disagree.

Considering the fact that a universal system is most definitely interested in profit-motives and cost-cutting with investigative aspects to combat fraud just as the private industry, that everyone is not covered, that public entities are statistically less efficient than private industries, and that public entities are statistically less effective than private industries in which the two are directly comparable; we'll in fact have to agree to disagree. Nice talkin' to you though.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Nice talkin' to you though.

Likewise. While I wish you hadn't rushed your response (so that there was less chance of misinterpreting my statements), it has been a worthwhile experience I think.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I just watched the movie. Disgusting, amazing how all of your tolerate this system from your own wonderful government.

Anyway, money better spent on killing people on the other side of the world who "hate you for your freedom".

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I just watched the movie. Disgusting, amazing how all of your tolerate this system from your own wonderful government.

In case you couldn't tell by the responses in this thread, or by the nationality of the director, not all of us tolerate it. (And don't you mean insurance companies, not the government?)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

In case you couldn't tell by the responses in this thread, or by the nationality of the director, not all of us tolerate it. (And don't you mean insurance companies, not the government?)

Well enough of you do tolerate it or it wouldn't be the way it is. And no I mean government as they are the ones who set it up in the first place AND allow it.

You'd think the trillion bucks spent on the war so far would have been better spent on something else like national healthcare or alternative fuel sources but if all it takes is some government corruption and propaganda why bother.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well enough of you do tolerate it or it wouldn't be the way it is. And no I mean government as they are the ones who set it up in the first place AND allow it.

You'd think the trillion bucks spent on the war so far would have been better spent on something else like national healthcare or alternative fuel sources but if all it takes is some government corruption and propaganda why bother.

Are you sure your country of origin has not helped fund our efforts in Iraq? Is this also causing a bit of a problem for your health care system and getting off that pesky oil trip?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you sure your country of origin has not helped fund our efforts in Iraq? Is this also causing a bit of a problem for your health care system and getting off that pesky oil trip?

What does pointing the finger at me have to do with the absolutely disgusting health care system the US has and is tolerated by its people?

[peeb]

Nothing. When Ebuddy runs out of logic, he resorts to personal abuse.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nothing. When Ebuddy runs out of logic, he resorts to personal abuse.

I beg to differ. ebuddy argued admirably in my debate with him several posts up. I may not agree with him, but from what I can tell he's a respectable individual. analogue SPRINKLES did not address the other side's arguments and instead offered only his contempt for our 'disgusting healthcare system.' Granted I agree with him, but still, he offered nothing to the debate other than an emotional outcry.

[Dakarʒ]

The rare even-handed post lifts its beautiful face.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nothing. When Ebuddy runs out of logic, he resorts to personal abuse.

I asked you an honest question peeb. Why would you be compelled to ignore me yet respond to others addressing me?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

What does pointing the finger at me have to do with the absolutely disgusting health care system the US has and is tolerated by its people?

You made a sweeping indictment against our "wonderful government" for not spending money more wisely, instead opting to spend it on war and oil. I asked if your country of origin is not also spending money on war and oil. If so and in following your logic, it would seem that spending on war and oil is the cause of health care problems. I'd like to know if this holds true elsewhere also. Are you sure your country of origin has not helped fund our efforts in Iraq? Is this also causing a bit of a problem for your health care system? Does your country not use oil?

You're free not to respond of course.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

I beg to differ. ebuddy argued admirably in my debate with him several posts up. I may not agree with him, but from what I can tell he's a respectable individual. analogue SPRINKLES did not address the other side's arguments and instead offered only his contempt for our 'disgusting healthcare system.' Granted I agree with him, but still, he offered nothing to the debate other than an emotional outcry.

I appreciate that itistoday and a kudos to Dakar for acknowledging your fairness as well. We may very well start a trend of civility that will last...

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate that itistoday and a kudos to Dakar for acknowledging your fairness as well. We may very well start a trend of civility that will last...

Hah! Civility on MacNN? That'll be the day.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

MichaelMoore.com : SICKO

The next documentary from Moore focuses on the failing healthcare system in the US. It will be interesting if any changes are made from it, like the small changes due to Bowling.

I'm going to reserve judgement on it until it is released later this month.

The only changes bowling made was to show what a freaking shilling liar Moore was.

Where before Moore was semi-respected. Now he's a joke.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If you can't afford health insurance, you sure as hell can't afford the bill you're going to get if you don't have it.

Actually if you can't afford semi-decent healthcare, you really can't afford the co-pay in the first place.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I just watched the movie. Disgusting, amazing how all of your tolerate this system from your own wonderful government.

How do we tolerate Moore's exaggeration and taking things out of context? Unlike you, we don't take them seriously. But seriously, moore is just telling you what you want to hear "US IS BAD!! CANADA IS GOOD!" So you'll believe anything he says.

Anyway, money better spent on killing people on the other side of the world who "hate you for your freedom".

Tell you what. Learn about the US healthcare, and actually UNDERSTAND IT then get back with us. And while your at it, take some time to fix your own countries crappy healthcare system. (It's not even close to being perfect either)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You made a sweeping indictment against our "wonderful government" for not spending money more wisely, instead opting to spend it on war and oil. I asked if your country of origin is not also spending money on war and oil. If so and in following your logic, it would seem that spending on war and oil is the cause of health care problems. I'd like to know if this holds true elsewhere also. Are you sure your country of origin has not helped fund our efforts in Iraq? Is this also causing a bit of a problem for your health care system? Does your country not use oil?

You're free not to respond of course.

I hear crickets chirping ebuddy. SWF rarely understands his rants against the US. Or the goings on behind what he is ranting about.

Once you try to discuss that with him, he is gone.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

SW...

Ah, that explains a lot...