There Is No Right to Health Care
-
You are God ? "You don't have the right to someone else's work" This is a furphy. Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ? I don't really understand the thought process behind claims like this, it's like you guys have no idea what a national health care system is, or what it means. Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
I've read Christian's warning. Your a spammer, discuss or face the consequences. Christian go ahead and moderate.
-
I agree with this completely. It's the real deal, those who support socialized, subsidized, highly regulated, bureaucratic nightmare healthcare are totally ignorant of the real consequences of those systems and only view it with the perspective that was taught to them through a lifetime a propaganda and dependency on government handouts and ridiculous laws. Ron Paul March 18, 2010 Statement before the United States House of Representatives, September 23, 2009 Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Points to consider: 1.) No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty. 2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. 3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. 4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices. 5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. 6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. 7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. 8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. 10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
I was planning and replying every single point of your post to you, but you're not worth the time and effort, you just don't get it... I wonder if you got on time in the line where they gave out brains, good luck with your health care, for what you have to pay here for a tetanus shot, I can go to my home country, get it for free and use the rest of the money for a weekend in Acapulco. Enjoy your 20 years of debts, and good luck if one day one member of your family get sick (I really hope not) that you have to sell your house, car, goods to pay for the bill or according to you, just let him/her die, who cares, you don't deserve it because you can't afford it
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You are God ?
Are you joking? I hope so.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ?
Very big difference. If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance. Let's say it's upon you to decide to buy insurance or not. This is a good approach; because if you feel the need to get insurance, you can if you wish. Otherwise, you can save your time and money, and not chip into a system and save on your own. Insurance is meant to be a combined effort of people chipping into a system to be used infrequently for accidents and things that crop up once in a blue moon, not to go to the emergency room every time you have a cough. So, with that, I submit that if I were not forcefully told to buy insurance, thanks to Massachusetts state law, I would have opted out of insurance, because I'm young and can save my money for other purposes, such as getting out of debt. But if I'm told to buy into it by the government, and use my tax money, yes, I'd have insurance. But that would also make expenses rise for everyone, because of the overhead of the government, and because they would cover as much as they can "to protect you". I'm forced into something, otherwise if I do not pay that tax, I'm going to jail, whether I need the insurance or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Of course they get paid. It doesn't matter though, it's without my consent. I'd rather pay out of pocket at my early age. How much do you want to bet that they have no idea how much it costs to do their daily work? Someone has to pay them for their work. Because nobody has the right to make someone a slave. So the government pays for it. But with my money. I'll never see a cent of that money ever again.
josda1000 wrote:
Are you joking? I hope so.
You said in your video, 'you are God'. Sorry if I wrested that from it's context.
josda1000 wrote:
If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance.
So you're saying that the people in America who are uninsured and cannot get access to health care because of their lack of access to insurance that is affordable, are happy about it ? One thing that having a single insurer does is push prices down. Both from economies of scale, and because it's not for profit. For example, my Medicare levy is 1% of my income. The national average wage is $45k. So, 1% of that is $450. I have top level private cover, which costs about $3000 a year. So, the average cost for full cover here is about $3500 a year. In comparison, I get more than $12k a year from my US employer to compensate for the cost they would usually pay for giving an employee health cover. Having health cover tied to employment is insane anyhow. Do only people with jobs deserve to be healthy ?
josda1000 wrote:
because if you feel the need to get insurance, you can if you wish
This assumes that everyone can afford health cover at US rates, but some people just decide they'd rather get sick and die.
josda1000 wrote:
Insurance is meant to be a combined effort of people chipping into a system to be used infrequently for accidents and things that crop up once in a blue moon, not to go to the emergency room every time you have a cough.
Health insurance is mostly insurance for things like car accidents or heart attacks, that is, things that happen rarely. I've been robbed and had to claim on insurance more often than I've had to claim for major health expenses. Sure, you get a copay on things like a doctors visit ( which probably does get abused by a small number of people ) and my private health does give me a copay on stuff like dental. That copay NEVER comes close to being as much as I pay them, because it's an added cost that pushes my premiums up, but at the core, I am insuring against major medical emergency.
josda1000 wrote:
So, with that, I submit that if I were not forcefully told to buy insurance, thanks to Massachusetts state law
-
About the God talk, you have to go back to part 1 of that series if you're interested in what I meant.
It's a different dude and goes for 10 min. How about you just provide a summary, or at least a point in the video to watch ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It's a different dude and goes for 10 min. How about you just provide a summary, or at least a point in the video to watch ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I've read Christian's warning. Your a spammer, discuss or face the consequences. Christian go ahead and moderate.
I gave him time to respond, googled to confirm he'd just copied and pasted someone elses work, and then deleted his post. I don't like doing it, but he needs to either contribute, or stick to his 'truthbox'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I just realised the rights vs privileges video I am being linked to is part of a different sequence, and I can't find links to the rest of your series. Link pls ? This is, of course, an aside. I'm more interested in your response to my other reply.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I just realised the rights vs privileges video I am being linked to is part of a different sequence, and I can't find links to the rest of your series. Link pls ? This is, of course, an aside. I'm more interested in your response to my other reply.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So basically if your poor and/or ill then you would get no medical help and you accuse CG of eugenics yet support the withdrawal of health care from anyone who is not rich enough to afford the insurance - and as yu believe in pure capitalism then you accept that those companies can charge as much as they want and restrict who gets it
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
The curious irony being he'd almost certainly be on the losing side of the line.
062142174041062102
-
http://www.youtube.com/user/josda1000#grid/user/EC6CC1362FF5A8E8[^] Sorry about the confusion. It's segment 1 of this.
np. It seems we have two threads here. Panthiesm means there are many gods. The Greeks were panthiests, for example. I'm not sure I agree with much of this. Freedom of speech can be taken away by causing people to weigh up speech ( which is always possible ) against consequences in a regime that limits speech. Of course, I understand your core point, but the way you make it is not quite true. If you're in a country that allows free speech, then, sure, use it. If it means someone will rape your wife and kill you, perhaps it's wiser to keep quiet. I don't mean this as a criticism, but this video sounds like a ramble based on a lack of knowledge or understanding about God, and some word games. 'we are all god' only if there is no actual God. We have the right to freedom of religion in free nations, and that's something I support 100%. But that doesn't mean we should assume all religions are equally right, it means we're all free to decide what we think is right, but if there is a God, then our thoughts and opinions will not change reality. If I decide there is no such thing as gravity, and rationalise that to myself, the laws of gravity will still apply to me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
The curious irony being he'd almost certainly be on the losing side of the line.
062142174041062102
Yes, there's something brilliant about getting people who are below average, have no income and no ability to find and hold a job, and get them to complain about governments providing a safety net.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You are God ?
Are you joking? I hope so.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have health insurance ? If you're not morally opposed to the doctor being paid by your insurance, why would it matter if the insurance company is the government ?
Very big difference. If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance. Let's say it's upon you to decide to buy insurance or not. This is a good approach; because if you feel the need to get insurance, you can if you wish. Otherwise, you can save your time and money, and not chip into a system and save on your own. Insurance is meant to be a combined effort of people chipping into a system to be used infrequently for accidents and things that crop up once in a blue moon, not to go to the emergency room every time you have a cough. So, with that, I submit that if I were not forcefully told to buy insurance, thanks to Massachusetts state law, I would have opted out of insurance, because I'm young and can save my money for other purposes, such as getting out of debt. But if I'm told to buy into it by the government, and use my tax money, yes, I'd have insurance. But that would also make expenses rise for everyone, because of the overhead of the government, and because they would cover as much as they can "to protect you". I'm forced into something, otherwise if I do not pay that tax, I'm going to jail, whether I need the insurance or not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you have any idea how places like Canada and Australia impliment it ? Do you realise our doctors get paid ?
Of course they get paid. It doesn't matter though, it's without my consent. I'd rather pay out of pocket at my early age. How much do you want to bet that they have no idea how much it costs to do their daily work? Someone has to pay them for their work. Because nobody has the right to make someone a slave. So the government pays for it. But with my money. I'll never see a cent of that money ever again.
*knock knock* You're free to do what you like, and I'm sure you have your life to live, but I am actually interested in your views on this, if you get a chance to reply.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Are you joking? I hope so.
You said in your video, 'you are God'. Sorry if I wrested that from it's context.
josda1000 wrote:
If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance.
So you're saying that the people in America who are uninsured and cannot get access to health care because of their lack of access to insurance that is affordable, are happy about it ? One thing that having a single insurer does is push prices down. Both from economies of scale, and because it's not for profit. For example, my Medicare levy is 1% of my income. The national average wage is $45k. So, 1% of that is $450. I have top level private cover, which costs about $3000 a year. So, the average cost for full cover here is about $3500 a year. In comparison, I get more than $12k a year from my US employer to compensate for the cost they would usually pay for giving an employee health cover. Having health cover tied to employment is insane anyhow. Do only people with jobs deserve to be healthy ?
josda1000 wrote:
because if you feel the need to get insurance, you can if you wish
This assumes that everyone can afford health cover at US rates, but some people just decide they'd rather get sick and die.
josda1000 wrote:
Insurance is meant to be a combined effort of people chipping into a system to be used infrequently for accidents and things that crop up once in a blue moon, not to go to the emergency room every time you have a cough.
Health insurance is mostly insurance for things like car accidents or heart attacks, that is, things that happen rarely. I've been robbed and had to claim on insurance more often than I've had to claim for major health expenses. Sure, you get a copay on things like a doctors visit ( which probably does get abused by a small number of people ) and my private health does give me a copay on stuff like dental. That copay NEVER comes close to being as much as I pay them, because it's an added cost that pushes my premiums up, but at the core, I am insuring against major medical emergency.
josda1000 wrote:
So, with that, I submit that if I were not forcefully told to buy insurance, thanks to Massachusetts state law
Christian Graus wrote:
So you're saying that the people in America who are uninsured and cannot get access to health care because of their lack of access to insurance that is affordable, are happy about it ?
Uh, no, I did not say that. I explicitly said, "If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance." I said nothing of happiness.
Christian Graus wrote:
One thing that having a single insurer does is push prices down.
That's definitely not true. When you have only one insurer, that's going to drive up prices because it's a monopoly. Anytime you have a monopoly, you don't have competition, therefore you can do whatever the hell you want to do without worrying about losing out on business. You can ask for whatever compensation you want, because you're the only game in town. What's more, it's coming straight from taxes, so there's no problem at all.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do only people with jobs deserve to be healthy ?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, in order to get health insurance you will need a job, which will boost the economy because more people will be looking for jobs instead of sitting on their butts because they have everything handed to them. I'm not saying that employers should be tied to health insurers, though they do provide for good benefits. "You can go with this company, this is what we offer, but feel free to opt out if you wish and go with something else." People should have the option of picking the best coverage, instead of a "one package fits all" deal. To tell me what's best for me without asking is arrogant. Like I say, I'm 25, and I shouldn't have to have coverage. Honestly, let me be the arrogant one and say I don't need the coverage. While unemployed, you should still be able to get insurance if you had a job previously and you saved for it. If you are just starting out when young, you probably won't have insurance, because you don't need it, and you need to keep the money to pay off debts, or save it for the future for whatever reason, including getting insurance, if so desired. This is one big incentive to go to work, and one way to keep the economy running; go to work, save, and take care of yourself; instead of having a big bureaucracy do it for you and take care of you fr
-
np. It seems we have two threads here. Panthiesm means there are many gods. The Greeks were panthiests, for example. I'm not sure I agree with much of this. Freedom of speech can be taken away by causing people to weigh up speech ( which is always possible ) against consequences in a regime that limits speech. Of course, I understand your core point, but the way you make it is not quite true. If you're in a country that allows free speech, then, sure, use it. If it means someone will rape your wife and kill you, perhaps it's wiser to keep quiet. I don't mean this as a criticism, but this video sounds like a ramble based on a lack of knowledge or understanding about God, and some word games. 'we are all god' only if there is no actual God. We have the right to freedom of religion in free nations, and that's something I support 100%. But that doesn't mean we should assume all religions are equally right, it means we're all free to decide what we think is right, but if there is a God, then our thoughts and opinions will not change reality. If I decide there is no such thing as gravity, and rationalise that to myself, the laws of gravity will still apply to me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Panthiesm means there are many gods.
No. Pantheism is where nature is all around us; God is all around us. Polytheism is "many gods".
Christian Graus wrote:
If you're in a country that allows free speech, then, sure, use it. If it means someone will rape your wife and kill you, perhaps it's wiser to keep quiet.
Well, yeah! duh! Freedom comes with responsibility. You must be responsible enough to know when to shut up, in order to protect yourself. You make your own choices on what to say, you have your own ideas, nobody can take that away from you. That's personal inhibition as opposed to someone else telling you to shut up. If you say something, you should prepare for consequences. Like my show; I may have calls that come in if people disagree with me, or maybe someday someone will even pick a fight with me, or start a law suit. Who knows. But you know what? I'll decide if I should say what I say, not someone else. That's self-protection, self-defense. But the point is that if governments imprison you for speaking in an unpopular manner, as I do a lot on this site apparently, then that's wrong, it's totalitarian, however you still have not lost your natural right to talk. It doesn't cost you anything to speak, it's part of your humanity.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't mean this as a criticism, but this video sounds like a ramble based on a lack of knowledge or understanding about God, and some word games.
Yes, I am very unknowledgable when it comes to standardized religions. However, are you saying you know more about God than I do? How do you know? It's impossible. If I have an opinion on this, and you have a completely different opinion, who is right? Nobody. Nobody is right. It's an idea that has not, and possibly can never, be proven right one way or the other.
Christian Graus wrote:
'we are all god' only if there is no actual God.
Agreed. Dead right. But I'm making my own opinions. Are you afraid that if you believe there is no God here, and you then find out there is, that He won't accept you into His house? I doubt it, as long as you live a principled and good life, and are kind to everyone and do the best you can.
Christian Graus wrote:
We have the right t
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So you're saying that the people in America who are uninsured and cannot get access to health care because of their lack of access to insurance that is affordable, are happy about it ?
Uh, no, I did not say that. I explicitly said, "If you have insurance from a company, you're not forcefully put into it, unless the government tells you that you must buy insurance." I said nothing of happiness.
Christian Graus wrote:
One thing that having a single insurer does is push prices down.
That's definitely not true. When you have only one insurer, that's going to drive up prices because it's a monopoly. Anytime you have a monopoly, you don't have competition, therefore you can do whatever the hell you want to do without worrying about losing out on business. You can ask for whatever compensation you want, because you're the only game in town. What's more, it's coming straight from taxes, so there's no problem at all.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do only people with jobs deserve to be healthy ?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, in order to get health insurance you will need a job, which will boost the economy because more people will be looking for jobs instead of sitting on their butts because they have everything handed to them. I'm not saying that employers should be tied to health insurers, though they do provide for good benefits. "You can go with this company, this is what we offer, but feel free to opt out if you wish and go with something else." People should have the option of picking the best coverage, instead of a "one package fits all" deal. To tell me what's best for me without asking is arrogant. Like I say, I'm 25, and I shouldn't have to have coverage. Honestly, let me be the arrogant one and say I don't need the coverage. While unemployed, you should still be able to get insurance if you had a job previously and you saved for it. If you are just starting out when young, you probably won't have insurance, because you don't need it, and you need to keep the money to pay off debts, or save it for the future for whatever reason, including getting insurance, if so desired. This is one big incentive to go to work, and one way to keep the economy running; go to work, save, and take care of yourself; instead of having a big bureaucracy do it for you and take care of you fr
josda1000 wrote:
I said nothing of happiness.
But, it's the core point. I am willing to bet there's a far greater % of Americans who wish they could afford medical care than there is Australians who desperately wish they could get their 1% back and just not get care if they get sick. Did you know a doctors visit for an overseas visitor here will cost in the vicinity of $35-$60 ? My visit to the doctor in the USA gave me a far lower quality of care than I'd accept from the cheapest doctor here, and cost me hundreds of dollars. It's possible that a government run system would end that level of extortion and force doctors to all provide decent care in the USA, although I don't think it's guarenteed.
josda1000 wrote:
When you have only one insurer, that's going to drive up prices because it's a monopoly.
So why is it that insurance AND visiting the doctor costs so much more in the USA ?
josda1000 wrote:
therefore you can do whatever the hell you want to do without worrying about losing out on business
Except the government is not running the system for profit. I am sure there's a degree of collusion that goes on in the US, for things to be as bad as they are, but having government run it does not run by the same rules as letting one for profit company do it.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm saying is, in order to get health insurance you will need a job, which will boost the economy because more people will be looking for jobs instead of sitting on their butts because they have everything handed to them.
Well, I am all for complete employment, but some people just find themselves out of work for periods of time. Why should someone die because the local company shut down and filled the local area with job applicants for a time ?
josda1000 wrote:
Like I say, I'm 25, and I shouldn't have to have coverage
And here, you'd have that option in terms of private cover. Odds are, at 25, the 1% you'd pay for Medicare is not a whole lot, and it means if you need a GP, or even if you're in a car accident and need a hospital, you're covered.
josda1000 wrote:
While unemployed, you should still be able to get insurance if you had a job previously and you saved for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Panthiesm means there are many gods.
No. Pantheism is where nature is all around us; God is all around us. Polytheism is "many gods".
Christian Graus wrote:
If you're in a country that allows free speech, then, sure, use it. If it means someone will rape your wife and kill you, perhaps it's wiser to keep quiet.
Well, yeah! duh! Freedom comes with responsibility. You must be responsible enough to know when to shut up, in order to protect yourself. You make your own choices on what to say, you have your own ideas, nobody can take that away from you. That's personal inhibition as opposed to someone else telling you to shut up. If you say something, you should prepare for consequences. Like my show; I may have calls that come in if people disagree with me, or maybe someday someone will even pick a fight with me, or start a law suit. Who knows. But you know what? I'll decide if I should say what I say, not someone else. That's self-protection, self-defense. But the point is that if governments imprison you for speaking in an unpopular manner, as I do a lot on this site apparently, then that's wrong, it's totalitarian, however you still have not lost your natural right to talk. It doesn't cost you anything to speak, it's part of your humanity.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't mean this as a criticism, but this video sounds like a ramble based on a lack of knowledge or understanding about God, and some word games.
Yes, I am very unknowledgable when it comes to standardized religions. However, are you saying you know more about God than I do? How do you know? It's impossible. If I have an opinion on this, and you have a completely different opinion, who is right? Nobody. Nobody is right. It's an idea that has not, and possibly can never, be proven right one way or the other.
Christian Graus wrote:
'we are all god' only if there is no actual God.
Agreed. Dead right. But I'm making my own opinions. Are you afraid that if you believe there is no God here, and you then find out there is, that He won't accept you into His house? I doubt it, as long as you live a principled and good life, and are kind to everyone and do the best you can.
Christian Graus wrote:
We have the right t
josda1000 wrote:
No. Pantheism is where nature is all around us; God is all around us. Polytheism is "many gods".
I think you are right. *hangs head in shame*
josda1000 wrote:
But the point is that if governments imprison you for speaking in an unpopular manner, as I do a lot on this site apparently, then that's wrong, it's totalitarian, however you still have not lost your natural right to talk. It doesn't cost you anything to speak, it's part of your humanity.
Yes, that is true. And obviously, I am all for free speech. We saw a show on TV the other day on the IKA, which is the new KKK, and my wife said 'why are they not in prison' and I said, free speech means nothing until it's tested by the freedom to say unpopular things, and in the open is the best place to have those sort of views. In the dark, they fester. In the open, they can be mocked and shown for what they are.
josda1000 wrote:
However, are you saying you know more about God than I do?
Well, I've been a Christian for 20 years, and I went to church for a few years before that. Becoming a Christian means having an experience of God. So, I suspect based on your video comments that I have the good fortune to know more about God than you, although I'm not suggesting I deserve any credit for it.
josda1000 wrote:
If I have an opinion on this, and you have a completely different opinion, who is right? Nobody. Nobody is right. It's an idea that has not, and possibly can never, be proven right one way or the other.
The Bible makes specific promises about how God answers, about what physically happens at the point of conversion. Having experienced it for myself, means I at least have the right to think I am right ( even though I don't expect you to believe it just because I say it ). Anyone who believes in God, HAS to believe that their view is right, or why would they hold it ? And, as you say, thinking I am right, means I regard other points of view to be in error.
josda1000 wrote:
Are you afraid that if you believe there is no God here, and you then find out there is, that He won't accept you into His house? I doubt it, as long as you live a principled and good life, and are kind to everyone and do the best you can.
Well, that's a common p
-
josda1000 wrote:
I said nothing of happiness.
But, it's the core point. I am willing to bet there's a far greater % of Americans who wish they could afford medical care than there is Australians who desperately wish they could get their 1% back and just not get care if they get sick. Did you know a doctors visit for an overseas visitor here will cost in the vicinity of $35-$60 ? My visit to the doctor in the USA gave me a far lower quality of care than I'd accept from the cheapest doctor here, and cost me hundreds of dollars. It's possible that a government run system would end that level of extortion and force doctors to all provide decent care in the USA, although I don't think it's guarenteed.
josda1000 wrote:
When you have only one insurer, that's going to drive up prices because it's a monopoly.
So why is it that insurance AND visiting the doctor costs so much more in the USA ?
josda1000 wrote:
therefore you can do whatever the hell you want to do without worrying about losing out on business
Except the government is not running the system for profit. I am sure there's a degree of collusion that goes on in the US, for things to be as bad as they are, but having government run it does not run by the same rules as letting one for profit company do it.
josda1000 wrote:
What I'm saying is, in order to get health insurance you will need a job, which will boost the economy because more people will be looking for jobs instead of sitting on their butts because they have everything handed to them.
Well, I am all for complete employment, but some people just find themselves out of work for periods of time. Why should someone die because the local company shut down and filled the local area with job applicants for a time ?
josda1000 wrote:
Like I say, I'm 25, and I shouldn't have to have coverage
And here, you'd have that option in terms of private cover. Odds are, at 25, the 1% you'd pay for Medicare is not a whole lot, and it means if you need a GP, or even if you're in a car accident and need a hospital, you're covered.
josda1000 wrote:
While unemployed, you should still be able to get insurance if you had a job previously and you saved for it.
Christian Graus wrote:
Odds are, at 25, the 1% you'd pay for Medicare is not a whole lot
If you earn less than $17,794 you don't pay the levy. If you earn less than $20,934 but more than $17,794 the levy is reduced. Above $20,934 there is no reduction on the levy. Unless you have a spouse/dependant etc. Medicare levy reduction for people on low incomes[^] Individual income thresholds[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Odds are, at 25, the 1% you'd pay for Medicare is not a whole lot
If you earn less than $17,794 you don't pay the levy. If you earn less than $20,934 but more than $17,794 the levy is reduced. Above $20,934 there is no reduction on the levy. Unless you have a spouse/dependant etc. Medicare levy reduction for people on low incomes[^] Individual income thresholds[^]
Rod Kemp wrote:
If you earn less than $17,794 you don't pay the levy. If you earn less than $20,934 but more than $17,794 the levy is reduced. Above $20,934 there is no reduction on the levy. Unless you have a spouse/dependant etc.
Oh, good point. I forgot about those details.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Rod Kemp wrote:
If you earn less than $17,794 you don't pay the levy. If you earn less than $20,934 but more than $17,794 the levy is reduced. Above $20,934 there is no reduction on the levy. Unless you have a spouse/dependant etc.
Oh, good point. I forgot about those details.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.