[tlj009]

I understand this, and it's not that I necessarily disagree. It's just that we've been left to help the needy ourselves for quite some time now, and we've failed. The church has failed to live up to it's calling to help the less fortunate. Left to ourselves, we've let private insurance corporations take advantage of the sick and less fortunate for the sake of making more profit. The state of our health care is abysmal. To think that leaving things the way they are because the Church should be doing more is a great idea, but it's unrealistic. Trusting people to help their fellow neighbor without any pressure has lead to people turning a blind eye.

I suspect that the reason the Church has been failing is because we already depend on the government to take that responsibility. And now to solve the problem you are advocating that the government should completely take over the Church's responsibility. I am going to be stubborn and keep trying to convince the Church to fulfill their own responsibilities.

Should we legislate morality? Well, where is the line drawn between what is just "moral" and what is just right "legally"? Where is the difference anyways? What is the purpose of the government but to protect the rights of its citizens and promote a better society? The government provides free education because an intelligent nation is a better nation. Same reason it provides free books at libraries. And a healthier nation is a better nation. We are one of the unhealthiest nations despite being the richest. How does that even happen? Why is health seen as so different from schooling? Given your lines of reasoning, I shouldn't have to pay for your dumb kid's education. What if I already paid for my kids education at a private school? Why should I then also pay for yours to go to public school? Or why should I pay for you to borrow that book from the library? I'm never gonna read it, and it's my money. Why should I pay for the cops to come to your house and protect you from someone trying to break in to your house? It's not my house. You should pay for it, not me.

How is our health LESS important?

If we are going to legislate morality, then there shouldn't be an argument about outlawing abortion, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, etc.

And believe it or not, I don't think that those things should be mandated except perhaps at the very local level. If I am told to pay a tax or leave by the county, it isn't that much of a hardship to move to a different county. If I am told to pay a tax or leave by the Federal government, I find it very difficult to leave the country.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I suspect that the reason the Church has been failing is because we already depend on the government to take that responsibility. And now to solve the problem you are advocating that the government should completely take over the Church's responsibility. I am going to be stubborn and keep trying to convince the Church to fulfill their own responsibilities.

So why is the church failing everywhere in the world? Why has it failed throughout recorded history?

If we are going to legislate morality, then there shouldn't be an argument about outlawing abortion, homosexuality, divorce, adultery, etc.

There would still be any number of arguments to be had. The bigger issue is that you haven't offered a consistant position which includes a strong opposition to UHC.

And believe it or not, I don't think that those things should be mandated except perhaps at the very local level. If I am told to pay a tax or leave by the county, it isn't that much of a hardship to move to a different county. If I am told to pay a tax or leave by the Federal government, I find it very difficult to leave the country.

So you personally are the standard by which "local" should be judged?

What if it was by the county and every county did it. What then?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I suspect that the reason the Church has been failing is because we already depend on the government to take that responsibility. And now to solve the problem you are advocating that the government should completely take over the Church's responsibility. I am going to be stubborn and keep trying to convince the Church to fulfill their own responsibilities.

why can't they both do it though? huh? why? why are they mutually exclusive?

[tlj009]

So why is the church failing everywhere in the world? Why has it failed throughout recorded history?

Same reason that government has failed everywhere in the world and throughout recorded history?

There would still be any number of arguments to be had. The bigger issue is that you haven't offered a consistant position which includes a strong opposition to UHC.

I don't have a strong opposition to UHC. I have a strong opposition to how it is being implemented and some of the reasons for implementing it as stated in this thread.

So you personally are the standard by which "local" should be judged?

???????? Judge local however you want. Just don't call the Federal Government local. I really don't know what you are getting at here.

What if it was by the county and every county did it. What then?

Then so be it? At least it would be legal and it would solve several problems. Take abortion for example, some counties would fund it through UHC and some would not. Just like some counties are wet and some are dry today. In short, everyone everywhere may agree to implement UHC but I think that it would be implemented in different ways to better satisfy the different variety of people that we have living in this country.

[tlj009]

why can't they both do it though? huh? why? why are they mutually exclusive?

They can and they will even after UHC is passed. And I do think that it will be passed. Of course, people being what they are, will have even more reason to not even try to help. It will be more of blaming the government for not helping rather than understanding that it is a personal responsibility.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Same reason that government has failed everywhere in the world and throughout recorded history?

Every first world western democracy has universal health coverage.

No church has ever given universal health coverage.

This seems to be a "if dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos?" question

???????? Judge local however you want. Just don't call the Federal Government local. I really don't know what you are getting at here.

I'm pretty sure I asked how your judged. If the Fed of 1776 was too big, how is the state of Texas, or California, or Alaska not too big? What is the cut-off and why?

Then so be it? At least it would be legal and it would solve several problems. Take abortion for example, some counties would fund it through UHC and some would not. Just like some counties are wet and some are dry today. In short, everyone everywhere may agree to implement UHC but I think that it would be implemented in different ways to better satisfy the different variety of people that we have living in this country.

This is another good example of you simply ignoring your own argument.

You said it should be by state so you could move if you didn't like it. I asked what would happen if every state passed the same thing, and you proceeded to ignore my questions and its implacations on your statement.

Since the *reason* you gave for making it "by state" was the ability to move to another state: how is that reason not nullified if every state passes UHC?

[tlj009]

Every first world western democracy has universal health coverage.

No church has ever given universal health coverage.

This seems to be a "if dolphins are so smart, how come they live in igloos?" question

???? I understood you to be asking why the Church has not taken care of everyone's needs. From the hungry to the sick to whatever. I said that the government hasn't done that either. But to even have a serious discussion on that, we will have to agree on who the "needy" really are and if every one of those deserves the help. A help (money, resources of any kind) that could be used elsewhere since there are needs everywhere. Then we will have to compare resources since those giving only have a certain amount of resources. If the Government takes 40% in taxes, then that lowers the amount that is given to charities or to the Church. In short, I think that it would take several pages to address this and there is absolutely no reason to do it in the first place.

I'm pretty sure I asked how your judged. If the Fed of 1776 was too big, how is the state of Texas, or California, or Alaska not too big? What is the cut-off and why?

See, I didn't get that from your post. I got that you were asking some kind of rhetorical question about me being the sole judge of what is or isn't local. But to answer this question, I wasn't saying that the State was the perfect level at all. I was saying that the more local that you get, the better the government is at reflecting the wishes of its people. I haven't really been arguing that it should be State, Region, County, or whatever. But the State is as large as you can go and be legal. That little fact just doesn't seem to matter to people anymore. It may even be better for the State to mandate UHC and the Counties to hash out at least some of the details. But that wasn't really what I was addressing.

This is another good example of you simply ignoring your own argument.

You said it should be by state so you could move if you didn't like it. I asked what would happen if every state passed the same thing, and you proceeded to ignore my questions and its implacations on your statement.

Actually, you said county, not state. And I didn't ignore it. I answered it.

Since the *reason* you gave for making it "by state" was the ability to move to another state: how is that reason not nullified if every state passes UHC?

And I answered this. If every State passes UHC, then I basically have to live with it. But 1) that is a big if 2) States will almost certainly have differences in it. So at least then I could choose which one was more in line with my own personal views. And I said all of this in the last post, so am I still missing something?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

???? I understood you to be asking why the Church has not taken care of everyone's needs. From the hungry to the sick to whatever. I said that the government hasn't done that either. But to even have a serious discussion on that, we will have to agree on who the "needy" really are and if every one of those deserves the help. A help (money, resources of any kind) that could be used elsewhere since there are needs everywhere. Then we will have to compare resources since those giving only have a certain amount of resources. If the Government takes 40% in taxes, then that lowers the amount that is given to charities or to the Church. In short, I think that it would take several pages to address this and there is absolutely no reason to do it in the first place.

The thread is on a UHC bill. Many countries provide UHC. No churches or charities ever have. Not in countries with no taxes, not in countries with high taxes, not here, not there, not now, not then, not ever.

See, I didn't get that from your post. I got that you were asking some kind of rhetorical question about me being the sole judge of what is or isn't local. But to answer this question, I wasn't saying that the State was the perfect level at all. I was saying that the more local that you get, the better the government is at reflecting the wishes of its people.

So make your case for some arbitrary size.

And I answered this. If every State passes UHC, then I basically have to live with it. But 1) that is a big if 2) States will almost certainly have differences in it. So at least then I could choose which one was more in line with my own personal views. And I said all of this in the last post, so am I still missing something?

So how is "have to live with the states passing it" OK and "have to live with the fed passing it" not OK, and how does that tie into your earlier claim that UHC wasn't OK because you couldn't change states to get around it?

[tlj009]

The thread is on a UHC bill. Many countries provide UHC. No churches or charities ever have. Not in countries with no taxes, not in countries with high taxes, not here, not there, not now, not then, not ever.

Is that to say that the Church has turned down those who have asked for help? Or are you simply stating that if it doesn't function exactly like the UHC that is proposed, then it doesn't count. Really, comparing the two is pointless unless we are comparing them on the same grounds...... like I indicated in the last post.

So make your case for some arbitrary size.

That would likely take more time than I have right now. Maybe later. I am not even real sure that it will work on any level. So in the mean time, feel free to tell me why it will work on the federal level when it has had already failed several times on the state level.

So how is "have to live with the states passing it" OK and "have to live with the fed passing it" not OK, and how does that tie into your earlier claim that UHC wasn't OK because you couldn't change states to get around it?

How do you interpret "have to live with the states passing it" with my being "OK" with it? I suspect that I will live with it if the Fed's pass it. That is a long way from agreeing with it though.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Is that to say that the Church has turned down those who have asked for help? Or are you simply stating that if it doesn't function exactly like the UHC that is proposed, then it doesn't count. Really, comparing the two is pointless unless we are comparing them on the same grounds...... like I indicated in the last post.

Nowhere in the history of the world has an entire population had health insurance (100% paid for healthcare to 100% of the population) from the church.

That would likely take more time than I have right now. Maybe later. I am not even real sure that it will work on any level. So in the mean time, feel free to tell me why it will work on the federal level when it has had already failed several times on the state level.

Germany, France, Canada, Switzerland, ad infinitum.

How do you interpret "have to live with the states passing it" with my being "OK" with it? I suspect that I will live with it if the Fed's pass it. That is a long way from agreeing with it though.

Because you said the states should vote on it.

Which position are you advocating?
No UHC.
UHC, but at some level other than federal.
Federal UHC.

You seemed to be arguing for the second (since you gave reasons why it should be done). Perhaps you should definitively state your position.