Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

[GaryC 7]

What is sad Marc, is that you have a comprehension deficit. I haven't castigated anyone's beliefs. I have merely pointed out that my understanding of Christianity is that it is a religion that seeks to help those who are in need. There is no new testament stories that advocate go it alone because it makes you stronger or that the poor are poor because they are idiots, lazy or ingrates.

I don't belive that I said that being self reliant is a Christian value. I said my faith has given me the strength to do what I have to do. As for charity I do that plenty. I am not going to get into it but I have a feeling that I have helped more poor people here than most. If you want a laundry list of what I have done then PM me. You might be suprised.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Govenment should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

Some examples of extraordinary things the goverment as done in any of these areas might help your case.Good luck.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Government should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

That's probably the best argument against privatized health care - the quest for profit (which is healthy for any business) has no place where the health and lives of people are at stake. A healthy population would mean less profits. No business would want to go down that road. They're better off from a business point of view if we're worse off from a health point of view.

[no name 1]

What is sad Marc, is that you have a comprehension deficit. I haven't castigated anyone's beliefs. I have merely pointed out that my understanding of Christianity is that it is a religion that seeks to help those who are in need. There is no new testament stories that advocate go it alone because it makes you stronger or that the poor are poor because they are idiots, lazy or ingrates.

I don't belive that I said that being self reliant is a Christian value. I said my faith has given me the strength to do what I have to do. As for charity I do that plenty. I am not going to get into it but I have a feeling that I have helped more poor people here than most. If you want a laundry list of what I have done then PM me. You might be suprised.

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're talking about UHC, not charity.

[GaryC 7]

Doesn't that help make the education a big bloated mess like socialized meds would? Under your theories, it would.

And it is. The way our public schools are run is a disgrace.

Since America is so not living up to your (impossible) standards, why not leave? Maybe when Hillary becomes Pres you'll go.

The difference between those that made it and those that didn't is personal will and self reliance. If you don't like that, tough

From your story, I can see why you believe this. However, in reality, this simply isn't true. It's also somewhat sad to me, that you use Christianity to buffer this belief when one of the core messages of Christianity is extending aid and succour to the weak and needy.

Not to mention I can't say I've ever heard Gary mention God before.....Certainly not nearly as much as I've felt the prohetizing in THIS thread....

Just because I don't wear my faith pinned to my shirt doesn't mean I don't have a very deep conviction of my faith.

Well, in the year & a half I've been on here, I've never heard you mention it before. Kinda strange, that.

Sorry I didn't get on my pulpit and preach to you from the begining. My faith is my business and I don't trumpet it around. But it does guide my values.

oh, I don't question your faith, or anyone's for that matter. I am simply pointing out when it suited you, you tried to use it as a measure of your godliness.

Why trumpet it now then, Gary?

You need a reading comprehension class I think.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Govenment should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

Some examples of extraordinary things the goverment as done in any of these areas might help your case. Good luck.

Just because you guys keep ignoring the fact that the government (any government) outperforms the efficiency of the private industry in the health care field by large margins doesn't make that phenomenon go away.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

What is sad Marc, is that you have a comprehension deficit. I haven't castigated anyone's beliefs. I have merely pointed out that my understanding of Christianity is that it is a religion that seeks to help those who are in need. There is no new testament stories that advocate go it alone because it makes you stronger or that the poor are poor because they are idiots, lazy or ingrates.

I don't belive that I said that being self reliant is a Christian value. I said my faith has given me the strength to do what I have to do. As for charity I do that plenty. I am not going to get into it but I have a feeling that I have helped more poor people here than most. If you want a laundry list of what I have done then PM me. You might be suprised.

WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're talking about UHC, not charity.

And I wasn't talking to you was I? Get over yourself.

[Dan J 277]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Government should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

That's probably the best argument against privatized health care - the quest for profit (which is healthy for any business) has no place where the health and lives of people are at stake. A healthy population would mean less profits. No business would want to go down that road. They're better off from a business point of view if we're worse off from a health point of view.

There is actually two sides to that. While it would mean less profit for health care companies, the rest of the economy would hugely benefit from a social health care system. Not only are health care costs being paid by employers going to be cheaper, employees are more likely to stay healthy and be more productive. The economic cost of a switch to a universal health care system will likely turn out to be neutral.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I may not agree with everything you stand for, but I am not so shallow as to think that makes you a terrible person, or that in your day to day life you don't do wonderful things.

That said, I still don't understand how you believe what you believe about health care

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Govenment should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

Some examples of extraordinary things the goverment as done in any of these areas might help your case. Good luck.

Just because you guys keep ignoring the fact that the government (any government) outperforms the efficiency of the private industry in the health care field by large margins doesn't make that phenomenon go away.

Whos ignoring, you just ignored my question with a question. Hell i was just wanting to see some examples of a thriving uhc system thats all.

Edited October 4, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Government should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

That's probably the best argument against privatized health care - the quest for profit (which is healthy for any business) has no place where the health and lives of people are at stake. A healthy population would mean less profits. No business would want to go down that road. They're better off from a business point of view if we're worse off from a health point of view.

There is actually two sides to that. While it would mean less profit for health care companies, the rest of the economy would hugely benefit from a social health care system. Not only are health care costs being paid by employers going to be cheaper, employees are more likely to stay healthy and be more productive. The economic cost of a switch to a universal health care system will likely turn out to be neutral.

Either that or a net gain. With a healthier population as a bonus. It's a win-win.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Govenment should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

Some examples of extraordinary things the goverment as done in any of these areas might help your case. Good luck.

Just because you guys keep ignoring the fact that the government (any government) outperforms the efficiency of the private industry in the health care field by large margins doesn't make that phenomenon go away.

Whos ignoring, you just ignored my question with a question.

My statement wasn't a question, Marc. It was a statement. The government runs health care more efficiently than the private sector. That's some accomplishment, isn't it? Especially since some would have us believe that that ain't even possible.

[no name 1]

Doesn't that help make the education a big bloated mess like socialized meds would? Under your theories, it would.

And it is. The way our public schools are run is a disgrace.

Since America is so not living up to your (impossible) standards, why not leave? Maybe when Hillary becomes Pres you'll go.

The difference between those that made it and those that didn't is personal will and self reliance. If you don't like that, tough

From your story, I can see why you believe this. However, in reality, this simply isn't true. It's also somewhat sad to me, that you use Christianity to buffer this belief when one of the core messages of Christianity is extending aid and succour to the weak and needy.

Not to mention I can't say I've ever heard Gary mention God before.....Certainly not nearly as much as I've felt the prohetizing in THIS thread....

Just because I don't wear my faith pinned to my shirt doesn't mean I don't have a very deep conviction of my faith.

Well, in the year & a half I've been on here, I've never heard you mention it before. Kinda strange, that.

Sorry I didn't get on my pulpit and preach to you from the begining. My faith is my business and I don't trumpet it around. But it does guide my values.

oh, I don't question your faith, or anyone's for that matter. I am simply pointing out when it suited you, you tried to use it as a measure of your godliness.

Why trumpet it now then, Gary?

You need a reading comprehension class I think.

you're the one who needs help reading.

I went to college (2 degrees) - I can assure you they make you read big books there. Does that still make me lazy?

Edited October 4, 2007 by devilette

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Quite the contrary, health care should not be at the mercy of profit driven organisations. It's not going to promote good health for anyone. Govenment should concern itself with things that are to the public good. Education, health, judicial matters, etc.

Some examples of extraordinary things the goverment as done in any of these areas might help your case. Good luck.

Just because you guys keep ignoring the fact that the government (any government) outperforms the efficiency of the private industry in the health care field by large margins doesn't make that phenomenon go away.

Whos ignoring, you just ignored my question with a question.

My statement wasn't a question, Marc. It was a statement. The government runs health care more efficiently than the private sector. That's some accomplishment, isn't it? Especially since some would have us believe that that ain't even possible.

Your right my bad, I think a better way is to take all people who arent covered. Let them be considered a group aka a corporation and get the rates that a corp. would get. Their rates would adjust based on usage. They would also could choose various plans based on need.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

According to Charles we all shoulda joined the military to get free health care.

you should give it a go. but i know, if it's not free you're not interested.

No social health care plan is free. Unless maybe your are retired, or poor. Or been in the military for long enough.

free while active duty, it's not free either once you retire

And that benefits your point how?

did you take a coffee break between posts? if you are active duty you don't pay for medical. now back to my earlier post, if you want free medical join the military. you on board now or should i send a forklift?

And you pointed out that IT GOES AWAY after you retire. Defeats your whole join the service, get free healthcare - but only while you serve - point, no?

not necessarily goes away - you have two available programs: one is free (tricare standard) but has higher deductibles, the other (tricare prime) costs about $450 a year - still better than what many are paying. so no point for you because once again you're pointless