NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

The hard part is getting God to send the forms back. :p

However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

It doesn't cost money..until someone decides to charge for it. And then it will.

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?


Sure when ever a bill is sent from God (or any other deity, or Buddha) the state should promptly pay it. If anyone else sends the bill it should be investigated for fraud.

Is reik like reiki, the "unblocking of energy" without physical contact?

Yeah, fuck that.

It should cover treatments that can be scientifically demonstrated to be effective and not cover treatments that cannot. Quite simple, really.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik.

Thought you were supposed to be a lolbertarian.

Thought you were supposed to be a lolbertarian.

*snicker*

Thought you were supposed to be a lolbertarian.

Are you trying to say that being a libertarian has anything to do with holding libertarian viewpoints on issues?

Because that's ridiculous. The real point of being a libertarian is to prove how jaded and cynical you are by saying that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are exactly the same thing, and that they do not hold different positions on any issues whatsoever.

Are you trying to say that being a libertarian has anything to do with holding libertarian viewpoints on issues?

Because that's ridiculous. The real point of being a libertarian is to prove how jaded and cynical you are by saying that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are exactly the same thing, and that they do not hold different positions on any issues whatsoever.

Don't forget, also talk about "upholding the constitution" but then can't remember exactly what parts of the constitution they're referring to, or what they say.

That, and voting for Ron Paul. Well...really really meaning to vote for Ron Paul. Just, you know, couldn't get around to it this time.

Herbal medicines aren't faith healing, unless of course Bayer's been making one hell of a killing selling snake oil for the past century...mind you, this assumes you mean the application of medicines obtained from plants, not that "three parts elephant dung, a dash of dragon bones and a good rhino horn" bullshit that seems to exist everywhere to scam innocent people out of their money.

Truth be told, we need to do a lot more research in to the field because these organisms have a lot of potential that's nowhere near developed...especially fungi and others whose rapid evolution can keep up with bacteria to produce an endless variety of new and powerful antibiotics each other. The best defenses against illnesses are those that evolved against them.

Don't forget, also talk about "upholding the constitution" but then can't remember exactly what parts of the constitution they're referring to, or what they say.

That, and voting for Ron Paul. Well...really really meaning to vote for Ron Paul. Just, you know, couldn't get around to it this time.

I thought it meant believing that building a chain link fence the entirety of the Mexican border will instantly solve all US problems simultaneously.

Thought you were supposed to be a lolbertarian.

*snicker*

Sorry, I do not respond to flame baiting.

Herbal medicines aren't faith healing, unless of course Bayer's been making one hell of a killing selling snake oil for the past century...mind you, this assumes you mean the application of medicines obtained from plants, not that "three parts elephant dung, a dash of dragon bones and a good rhino horn" bullshit that seems to exist everywhere to scam innocent people out of their money.

Truth be told, we need to do a lot more research in to the field because these organisms have a lot of potential that's nowhere near developed...especially fungi and others whose rapid evolution can keep up with bacteria to produce an endless variety of new and powerful antibiotics each other. The best defenses against illnesses are those that evolved against them.

Agreed 100%.

I thought it meant believing that building a chain link fence the entirety of the Mexican border will instantly solve all US problems simultaneously.

Actually, it sort of did in East Germany...but then again, I don't think we should be emulating the country that had one secret police informant for as few as every seven people.

Agreed 100%.

I sort of feel the same way about accupuncture, although others like Reiki are a bit overboard. But then again, there aren't many things that could be worse than the effects from some of the medicines out there...anything to reduce the necessity of those would be a blessing.

The day God starts billing for services is the day we start taxing Him.

Oh, yeah, that's a goldmine! We could abolish all other taxes, and implement some wide ranging social spending programs too.

In fact, God's income being infinite, we could tax Him as much as we liked without causing Him any hardship. Bugger the pony, I want my own planet! I see no reason why every living person should not be able to have their own planet too! And a Warp 4 Star Cruiser for weekend jaunts. And ... and ...

The day God starts billing for services is the day we start taxing Him.

Oh, yeah, that's a goldmine! We could abolish all other taxes, and implement some wide ranging social spending programs too.

In fact, God's income being infinite, we could tax Him as much as we liked without causing Him any hardship. Bugger the pony, I want my own planet! I see no reason why every living person should not be able to have their own planet too! And a Warp 4 Star Cruiser for weekend jaunts. And ... and ...

thou Shalt not Tax GOD. the 12th commandment.

thou Shalt not Tax GOD. the 12th commandment.

The Romans got around "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" by simply making Caesar a God...talk about practicality.

The Romans got around "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" by simply making Caesar a God...talk about practicality.

that was god taxing you. we call that tithing today.

Faith healing? Pfft.

thou Shalt not Tax GOD. the 12th commandment.

Wouldn't that be more like a biblical amendment?

Wouldn't that be more like a biblical amendment?

it is in the new new testament just like the 11th commandment is in the new testament.

it is in the new new testament just like the 11th commandment is in the new testament.

There are 14 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. 613 in Bible as a whole.

I always thought it was 10.

I always thought it was 10.

God lied.

If it can't be proven to work (hear's looking at YOU faith healing) it shouldn't be covered.

god lied.
s.o.b.

As long as the NHS isn't paying for it...

As long as the NHS isn't paying for it...

Golly good.

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

Something that belongs in the only in America thing file hey? Other countries debate whether cosmetic surgery should be covered.

And is acupuncture really not covered under the health care system? What about massages?

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?
I think that government run medical care will need a lot of faith healing. As far as the new age stuff, you'll be lucky to get chiropractic...

I always thought it was 10.
Didn't you see "History of the World"?

Didn't you see "History of the World"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I always thought it was 10.

depends on how you read them and what you consider a commandment.

depends on how you read them and what you consider a commandment.

None of them.

Acupuncture actually works as a treatment. Regular check-ups at your family doctor, however, do not increase life expectancy.

Acupuncture actually works as a treatment. Regular check-ups at your family doctor, however, do not increase life expectancy.

I disagree. Regular check ups help detect things like high blood pressure, alziemers, heart disease, cancer, and about a million other things that can cause you to die early while they are treatable. Which by the way, increases your life expectancy.

Acupuncture actually works as a treatment. Regular check-ups at your family doctor, however, do not increase life expectancy.

Of course they do. Early detection is paramount. There are countless ailments that can be successfully treated if caught early enough, and regular check ups are a huge part of that.

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Because I don't support Universal Health Care, and am somewhat surprised that you do.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
Mel Brooks, "History of the World, Part 1". Moses comes down from the mountain with three tablets. He starts to announce, "I have these 15..." and stumbles, dropping a tablet. He restarts his announcement, "I have these 10 commandments...".

Funny movie. Watch it.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Because I don't support Universal Health Care, and am somewhat surprised that you do.

Only rich people don't want it. The US is the "only wealthy, industrialised country" not to have it.

Only rich people don't want it. The US is the "only wealthy, industrialised country" not to have it.

Really? Because I was not aware that I was rich. In fact, I was under the impression that I was quite middle class, and without Health Care Insurance.

Really? Because I was not aware that I was rich. In fact, I was under the impression that I was quite middle class, and without Health Care Insurance.

So... if you got hit by a bus tomorrow...

So... if you got hit by a bus tomorrow...
Then my life is over. It's been fun, and I have no regrets. In fact, I'll finally be able to see whether or not I'm right about the afterlife.

Oh, and why did I wander out in front of a Bus? Has a riot began? Is the SWAT team using flash bang grenades?

Then my life is over. It's been fun, and I have no regrets. In fact, I'll finally be able to see whether or not I'm right about the afterlife.

Oh, and why did I wander out in front of a Bus? Has a riot began? Is the SWAT team using flash bang grenades?

Unless you didn't die. You'd be taken to a hospital, and since they couldn't NOT treat you just because you don't have health insurance, they'd take the loss. If it's a municipal hospital, that means that the taxpayer would be covering the cost of treatment.

This is the part where you talk about how health care is a right, not a privilege, and how honest, hard-working taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize the health care of other people, as if that doesn't already happen all the time.

Unless you didn't die. You'd be taken to a hospital, and since they couldn't NOT treat you just because you don't have health insurance, they'd take the loss. If it's a municipal hospital, that means that the taxpayer would be covering the cost of treatment.

This is the part where you talk about how health care is a right, not a privilege, and how honest, hard-working taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize the health care of other people, as if that doesn't already happen all the time.
Wrong. This is where I talk about the idiocy of EMTALA.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Because I don't support Universal Health Care, and am somewhat surprised that you do.

You don't support paying less per person for healthcare for complete coverage of every person? You, sir, make no sense.

You don't support paying less per person for healthcare for complete coverage of every person? You, sir, make no sense.
I don't support said cost being spread out over everyone. Also, see above post.

I don't support said cost being spread out over everyone. Also, see above post.

It already is.

It already is.

Exactly. I don't support the new Universal Heath Care Movement, because it's every bit as bad as EMTALA. Did you not read my above post?

We already have Medicare and Mediaid, so we're already 60% of the way to UHC.

We already have Medicare and Mediaid, so we're already 60% of the way to UHC.

Then work to reverse it, don't roll over and give up on your political beliefs.:mad:

At least make angry rants on Internet Forums!:p

Then work to reverse it, don't roll over and give up on your political beliefs.:mad:

At least make angry rants on Internet Forums!:p

I dunno if it's because I'm happy at my job (nothing makes me laugh than to go in the morning and seeing all the dogs bark and wag their tails when I walk in to feed them.) or that Beltane was the celebration of new beginnings, but I'm actually calmer.

Of course I still have my sarcastic snarky wit, that will never go away. :D

Personally I think if we are going to adopt a UHC system, we should adopt Germany's. They have public health care, and private. The difference is like being in first class and coach of an aircraft. Public is coach, Private is first class.

Wrong. This is where I talk about the idiocy of EMTALA.

You're kidding, right? You believe that hospitals should let people die if they cannot pay for treatment?

I dunno if it's because I'm happy at my job (nothing makes me laugh than to go in the morning and seeing all the dogs bark and wag their tails when I walk in to feed them.) or that Beltane was the celebration of new beginnings, but I'm actually calmer.

Bah. I'm more upset than ever.

Of course I still have my sarcastic snarky wit, that will never go away. :D

That's what they all said.:p

Personally I think if we are going to adopt a UHC system, we should adopt Germany's. They have public health care, and private. The difference is like being in first class and coach of an aircraft. Public is coach, Private is first class.
Yet... Everyone is still paying for the Public Health Care, whether they use it or not.
You're kidding, right? You believe that hospitals should let people die if they cannot pay for treatment?
Charity.

Charity.

One word responses now?

One word responses now?
Yes.:wink:

Charity.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Blah blah fucking blah. Do you know the one universal constant amongst all people that advocate that others should depend on charity and not social welfare? They have never once in their lives had to depend on charity.

Rarely have they even moved out of their parent's house.

Yet... Everyone is still paying for the Public Health Care, whether they use it or not.

You go to public highschool, do you not? Next time you're out and about, take a look at all those tax paying adults who live in your county, and don't have school age children of their own. Guess what? They don't use the public school system, yet they're paying for it. Specifically they're paying for you to go to school. You, yourself are a beneficiary of social welfare. You, yourself, are receiving your education on the backs of people who are paying for you to go to school.

You should do the only responsible thing and drop out.

Yes.:wink:

I'll consider the argument conceded then.

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Blah blah fucking blah. Do you know the one universal constant amongst all people that advocate that others should depend on charity and not social welfare? They have never once in their lives had to depend on charity.

And it makes my opinion less valid... How? If someone has not experienced war firsthand, can they support any war?

Rarely have they even moved out of their parent's house.
Ah, yes, the age card. When in doubt, find petty personal details, no? I fail to see how this comment is relevant, except possibly as borderline flamebait meant to goad me into a reaction that will allow you to discredit my argument through my inappropriate reaction.

Yet... Everyone is still paying for the Public Health Care, whether they use it or not.
Consider the notion that your funding of a UHC which you might not use would be to the benefit of other, less fortunate persons.

You go to public highschool, do you not? Next time you're out and about, take a look at all those tax paying adults who live in your county, and don't have school age children of their own. Guess what? They don't use the public school system, yet they're paying for it. Specifically they're paying for you to go to school. You, yourself are a beneficiary of social welfare. You, yourself, are receiving your education on the backs of people who are paying for you to go to school.

You should do the only responsible thing and drop out.
You make a rather large mistake, and an assumption, for that matter. I'm home schooled, and have been for quite some time.
I'll consider the argument conceded then.
You may if you wish, but I find nothing to argue here. I believe that the already numerous charities working to pay for such things as people who have medical issues and are unable to pay.

Consider the notion that your funding of a UHC which you might not use would be to the benefit of other, less fortunate persons.
I do consider that. However, my belief in the power of charity, and that those who are less fortunate should be covered by Private charities, of which I give to. Forcing a cost on everyone is not the way to go.

And it makes my opinion less valid... How?

You seriously need to ask this question? You are actually truly asking how having no experience or any empirical evidence that the system you support is actually workable may call into question the validity of your opinion?

Really? You're actually asking this?

Ah, yes, the age card. When in doubt, find petty personal details, no? I fail to see how this comment is relevant, except possibly as borderline flamebait meant to goad me into a reaction that will allow you to discredit my argument through my inappropriate reaction.

See, here's the thing. I have no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that the system you advocate is 100% flawed, 100% broken, and 100% unworkable. I know this because, unlike you, I have actually lived in real world situations, I have actually seen the impact of various economic experiments, and have actually seen their fallout, first hand.

And as I told you once before, you shouldn't consider attacks on your age a flame. By saying that you hold such nonsensical opinions based purely on your age, and thus, general immaturity and inexperience, I am at least accepting the possibility that you will, eventually, grow out of it.

At least I am saying that there's hope for you. If however you'd prefer me to not think that your insane, unworkable, and utterly inane political beliefs are not a product of your age and inexperience, and that you are in fact doomed to such nonsensical belief systems forever, then as you wish. I was at least willing to extend to you the benefit of the doubt that one day you'd grow out of it.

Perhaps I was wrong.

I'm home schooled

Oh that explains so much. Ah homeschooling, where the idea of being taught every subject by the same person, who is not a trained teacher, somehow seems like a good idea.

What amuses me most about these arguments is that the very fact that libertarians whine so much about "involuntary taxation" makes crystal clear that if we were to rely on "private charities" there wouldn't be enough.

If someone is unwilling to pay the tax, what makes you think they'd be willing to donate with no compulsion what so ever? Sure there might be some, but I think it makes it pretty clear, if you're whining about "your money being taken away" then you're probably not someone who is going to give generously.

You make a rather large mistake, and an assumption, for that matter. I'm home schooled, and have been for quite some time.

You may if you wish, but I find nothing to argue here. I believe that the already numerous charities working to pay for such things as people who have medical issues and are unable to pay.

Then you are blind. There is a world of difference between guaranteed medical treatment and having to rely on the generousity of charity, even if there are "numerous charities working to pay for such things as people who have medical issues and are unable to pay," completely leaving alone the prospect of refusing treatment in emergency cases when there is not the time to arrange charitable payment options. Your entire premise is foolish and only has place in a fantasy world.

I do consider that. However, my belief in the power of charity, and that those who are less fortunate should be covered by Private charities, of which I give to.
Whereas I see the existence of a charity as evidence of a problem that needs to be solved.

Charities are temporary fixes in place of real solutions, and are potentially unreliable. To my mind, having a guaranteed safety-net which might not be used by some is far superior than a perhaps patchy net that may not cover everyone who needs it.

Forcing a cost on everyone is not the way to go.
Using emotive weasel words ('forcing') is not the way to go.

You seriously need to ask this question? You are actually truly asking how having no experience or any empirical evidence that the system you support is actually workable may call into question the validity of your opinion?

Really? You're actually asking this?

Perhaps you'd like to quote the other part of my post, answer it, or come up witha blank and merely leave it out again, as you did here.
See, here's the thing. I have no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that the system you advocate is 100% flawed, 100% broken, and 100% unworkable. I know this because, unlike you, I have actually lived in real world situations, I have actually seen the impact of various economic experiments, and have actually seen their fallout, first hand.
And I'm supposed to take your word for it... Why? I'm supposed to believe every statement that comes out of your mouth, because you claim to have been born at an earlier year then me, while forgetting the possibility that I could be absolutely lying through my teeth from the moment I arrived here, and could be, in the real world, some creep of 60+ years? Or is it because you've lived in a system without Government Welfare in the USA, which would put you beyond 80 years, with ease.

And as I told you once before, you shouldn't consider attacks on your age a flame. By saying that you hold such nonsensical opinions based purely on your age, and thus, general immaturity and inexperience, I am at least accepting the possibility that you will, eventually, grow out of it.
Of course, you assert that my opinions are nonsensical. And you speak as if your word is golden and unassailable. However, I do consider attacks on my age a flame, whether you think I should or not.
At least I am saying that there's hope for you. If however you'd prefer me to not think that your insane, unworkable, and utterly inane political beliefs are not a product belief systems forever, then as you wish. I was at least willinof your age and inexperience, and are in fact doomed to such nonsensical g to extend to you the benefit of the doubt that one day you'd grow out of it.
You say t his as if you are descending from the heavens to grant me some oh-so-merciful pardon. Why can't you accept that different people have opinions that just might differ from yours radically? It happens, from time to time. It doesn't make them inferior, nor does it put you on some pedestal from which you are given some sort of right to look down upon them.

Perhaps I was wrong.
I might sig this, Neo Art considering the possibility that he could be wrong?:p

Keep in mind that when times are tough (e.g. now) charities receive less money.

Oh that explains so much. Ah homeschooling, where the idea of being taught every subject by the same person, who is not a trained teacher, somehow seems like a good idea.
If you would like to attack the Homeschooling system, go right ahead. However, I have not seen any evidence that those who are home schooled are in any way inferior in mental capacity or in acquired knowledge than those who are educated in a Private School, or a Public School. Not only that, but you seem to be attacking my education, personally, assuming that I am inferior to 'normal people', who have been to a public school for their whole life.
What amuses me most about these arguments is that the very fact that libertarians whine so much about "involuntary taxation" makes crystal clear that if we were to rely on "private charities" there wouldn't be enough.

If someone is unwilling to pay the tax, what makes you think they'd be willing to donate with no compulsion what so ever? Sure there might be some, but I think it makes it pretty clear, if you're whining about "your money being taken away" then you're probably not someone who is going to give generously.
And you're wrong. I give quite a bit. The thing is, people don't like to be forced to do anything. I'm sure many people have noticed this, and I'm quite sure that you, with all of your 'life experience' most certainly would have noticed this.
Then you are blind. There is a world of difference between guaranteed medical treatment and having to rely on the generousity of charity, even if there are "numerous charities working to pay for such things as people who have medical issues and are unable to pay," completely leaving alone the prospect of refusing treatment in emergency cases when there is not the time to arrange charitable payment options.
Time to arrange Charitable payment options? Why do you assume that a charity must contact each and every person it saves? A local charity could easily contact a local hospital and work out something for those in need of emergency health care without having to contact each patient, each time.
Whereas I see the existence of a charity as evidence of a problem that needs to be solved.

I see a Charity as a solution to a problem.

Charities are temporary fixes in place of real solutions, and are potentially unreliable. To my mind, having a guaranteed safety-net which might not be used by some is far superior than a perhaps patchy net that may not cover everyone who needs it.

Potentially, yes. They can be unreliable. But at the same time, they can be more reliable than Government Services. It really does depend on the charity.

Using emotive weasel words ('forcing') is not the way to go.
It was a reaction to the emotive choice of words and examples used by several of the posters here. It does not excuse my actions, however. I concede that to you.

Perhaps you'd like to quote the other part of my post, answer it, or come up witha blank and merely leave it out again, as you did here.

What was your question again? Can people criticize war without experiencing war? Of course they can. But if they haven't experienced war, know nobody who has experienced war, has read nothing about experiencing war, has no evidence, first or second hand what war is like, their criticisms would ring just as hollow as yours do.

And I'm supposed to take your word for it... Why? I'm supposed to believe every statement that comes out of your mouth, because you claim to have been born at an earlier year then me, while forgetting the possibility that I could be absolutely lying through my teeth from the moment I arrived here, and could be, in the real world, some creep of 60+ years?

Don't believe me. Don't believe a word I say. Pick up a damned history book and learn for yourself.

Or is it because you've lived in a system without Government Welfare in the USA, which would put you beyond 80 years, with ease.

...I'm not sure if this fact ever occurred to you but America is not the only country in this world, and I'm thoroughly confused as to why you would think I would have spent my whole life here.

Of course, you assert that my opinions are nonsensical. And you speak as if your word is golden and unassailable.

If you disagree, then feel free to assail them. The only difference, I have the weight of history on my side, so if you want to prove me wrong you're going to have to come up with a lot more than "nuh uh!"

However, I do consider attacks on my age a flame, whether you think I should or not.

That is entirely your choice.

You say t his as if you are descending from the heavens to grant me some oh-so-merciful pardon. Why can't you accept that different people have opinions that just might differ from yours radically?

Of course I accept that people have opinions that differ from mine. Lots of people have opinions that differ from mine. Some people are communists. Some are libertarians. Some are nazis. Some think the third Matrix movie was good.

All of those people have opinions that differ from mine. And all of them are wrong. You have a right to your opinions. You don't have a right to your facts. Despite what you may have been told, merely having an opinion doesn't make that opinion above reproach. Not all opinions are equal.


It happens, from time to time. It doesn't make them inferior,

Wrong opinions are, by definition, inferior to right opinions. At least insofar as reality is concerned.

nor does it put you on some pedestal from which you are given some sort of right to look down upon them.

I have a right to "look down" upon anyone I so choose. But you are mistaken. I don't look down on you. I look down on your opinions. I look down on your beliefs. I look down on your ideas of good governance. That's not an attack on you. You can't change you. You can change your beliefs.

Hopefully one day you will.

I might sig this, Neo Art considering the possibility that he could be wrong?:p

Yes, I'll again willingly conceded that I might have been wrong when I thought you might some day outgrow it.

Keep in mind that when times are tough (e.g. now) charities receive less money.

I realize that. Also, when times are tough, the government receives less money from taxpayers, and it's not like we need any more National Debt.

Ahh NSG, the only place where someone who in all likelihood earns no appreciable income talks about how he "quite a bit" to charity. How much could you possibly give?

Time to arrange Charitable payment options? Why do you assume that a charity must contact each and every person it saves? A local charity could easily contact a local hospital and work out something for those in need of emergency health care without having to contact each patient, each time.

So, you believe that a charity would enter a contract that would essentially give the hospital a blank check for emergency procedures in all cases? You believe that a charity would not want to review expenses billed to them?

USA pay twice as much for medical care and insurance than any other first world country. In order for us to cut down on spending, we probably should look towards public health care. That way we're spending half as much on medical care. Which means, you actually do get more money in your paycheck.

The problem with this all is, that in conversations with a libertarian (let’s call him “L”) and a sensible person (let’s call her “S”), it inevitably goes something like this:

L: We shouldn’t have taxes!

S: How could you say that? Innumerable poor people need tax funded systems to live. Do you want the poor to suffer and die?

L: No, of course not, that would be inhumane

S: But then how will they live without the programs they depend on?

L: Charities

S: That’s stupid! Charities would never work. People wouldn’t voluntarily give up their own money sufficiently enough to fund them as much as they would need to be funded.

L: Yes they will. People are generous and would do it.

S: But that’s silly to say. I mean, isn’t paying your taxes essentially donating to charity? When you pay your taxes, aren’t you really just giving money to the super charity that is the US government? If people are so willing to donate to charity, why do they bitch so much about taxes?

L: It’s because they’re FORCED. People would give willingly, they just don’t like being told they HAVE to.

S: But then why don’t they even now? Why are charities still woefully underfunded? Why is there still not enough money to charities?

L: Because people are being forced to donate taxes, and so don’t have enough spare money. If they didn’t have to pay taxes, they’d have more money to give, voluntarily, to charities.

S: But again that’s stupid. Sure if you stopped taxes people would have more money. But they’d also now need to pay for things that taxes were paying for. They’d need to pay for private schools for their children. They’d need to pay tolls on what were free roads. They’d probably end up paying more for services and utilities, because history has shown that deregulation tends to drive prices up. People who relied on profit inefficient public transportation probably now have to pay for cars, because the transit lines can’t generate a profit and are scrapped. They’re going to have to cut checks to private security and emergency response companies because they no longer have public police, ambulance and fire departments to protect them. Their insurance rates will probably go up because the insurance isn’t being subsidized any more.

So sure if you cut out taxes they’ll have more money, but that money is going to go right back paying for things that the government used to provide, so it’s not like they’re going to have any more money free at the end of things. In fact, the whole point of taxes, and how they work is that the rich minority subsidizes the poorer majority. The vast bulk of people are a tax drain, by which I mean they receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. If you cut out government spending, these people would probably have even LESS to spend, because it’d cost more to recoup the serves they gained than they were paying for taxes. The only people who could stop paying taxes, pay for services privately, and come out ahead, in all likelihood, are the rich. Which is ironic because they’re the people who you would presume WOULD give to charity anyway, even after taxes, because they could afford to.

So once you cut all these taxes, and want people to donate to private charities, where is this money to donate going to come from, considering most people will have to pay as much, if not more, in private services to subsidize what they were getting from the government (not counting of course all the government employees who are going to be out of a job entirely?

L: I’ll um….I’ll get back to you.

Then they never do.

-snip-

I think your view about lolbertarianism has been tarnished by arguing against 15 year olds on an internet forum, and treating their views as the norm.

What was your question again? Can people criticize war without experiencing war? Of course they can. But if they haven't experienced war, know nobody who has experienced war, has read nothing about experiencing war, has no evidence, first or second hand what war is like, their criticisms would ring just as hollow as yours do.

Which invalidates the opinion of a large amount of our population on most our foreign policy.

Don't believe me. Don't believe a word I say. Pick up a damned history book and learn for yourself.
Right. Because, let's see, it would seem that before FDR, the USA was the same place it is today, especially when it comes to income to living costs. Am I right?
...I'm not sure if this fact ever occurred to you but America is not the only country in this world, and I'm thoroughly confused as to why you would think I would have spent my whole life here.
We're talking about the USA here. As NERVUN mentioned, the Jury System was introduced in Japan early on, but it didn't work at that time. Does that mean it won't work now? Or that it didn't work in the USA at the time? No. The USA today is incredible different from other countries today, from the USA in the thirties, in almost every way.


If you disagree, then feel free to assail them. The only difference, I have the weight of history on my side, so if you want to prove me wrong you're going to have to come up with a lot more than "nuh uh!"
The weight of History? You speak as if what happens in a certain time, under certain circumstances, will most certainly repeat itself under different circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

That is entirely your choice.


Of course I accept that people have opinions that differ from mine. Lots of people have opinions that differ from mine. Some people are communists. Some are libertarians. Some are nazis. Some think the third Matrix movie was good.

Except you seem to insult said opinions at every corner, with such taunts as: "Crackpotism", Comparing Libertarians to Scrooge,

All of those people have opinions that differ from mine. And all of them are wrong. You have a right to your opinions. You don't have a right to your facts. Despite what you may have been told, merely having an opinion doesn't make that opinion above reproach. Not all opinions are equal.

This little tidbit made me laugh, considering the definition of an opinion.
An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

Wrong opinions are, by definition, inferior to right opinions. At least insofar as reality is concerned.

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

I have a right to "look down" upon anyone I so choose. But you are mistaken. I don't look down on you. I look down on your opinions. I look down on your beliefs. I look down on your ideas of good governance. That's not an attack on you. You can't change you. You can change your beliefs.
And why would I change my beliefs? I see nothing here contradicting them, other than a few people on the internet, of all things. All I see here is a difference in opinions between humans, between people. I see nothing concrete here, nothing world-changing, nothing that would change my opinion on this subject.


Hopefully one day you will.

I might. On the other hand, I might not.

Ahh NSG, the only place where someone who in all likelihood earns no appreciable income talks about how he "quite a bit" to charity. How much could you possibly give?
I do have a part-time job. I give a fair percentage of what I earn monthly. I usually give around 150$, sometimes less, sometimes more.

I do have a part-time job. I give a fair percentage of what I earn monthly. I usually give around 150$, sometimes less, sometimes more.

Do you give the money to a home for pigs with broken wings?

I think your view about lolbertarianism has been tarnished by arguing against 15 year olds on an internet forum, and treating their views as the norm.

Let's be honest. Are there really any other kind of lolbertarians?

And I like this word, it serves a good point to differentiate between actual Libertarians who have some interesting formed opinions, though ones I disagree with, and internet "lolbertarians" that I'm addressing.

Some think the third Matrix movie was good.

A Hell alot better than the second one. Although the second one did introduce The Merovingian.

Let's be honest. Are there really any other kind of lolbertarians?

And I like this word, it serves a good point to differentiate between actual Libertarians who have some interesting formed opinions, though ones I disagree with, and internet "lolbertarians" that I'm addressing.

and I'm going to ask how you differinate between the lolbertarians and the Libertarians. Because I do have to be honest, the 15 year old who held a rally for Ron Paul in World of Warcraft was well, let's be honest embarrassing.

The problem with this all is, that in conversations with a libertarian (let’s call him “L”) and a sensible person (let’s call her “S”), it inevitably goes something like this:

L: We shouldn’t have taxes!

S: How could you say that? Innumerable poor people need tax funded systems to live. Do you want the poor to suffer and die?

L: No, of course not, that would be inhumane

S: But then how will they live without the programs they depend on?

L: Charities

S: That’s stupid! Charities would never work. People wouldn’t voluntarily give up their own money sufficiently enough to fund them as much as they would need to be funded.

L: Yes they will. People are generous and would do it.

S: But that’s silly to say. I mean, isn’t paying your taxes essentially donating to charity? When you pay your taxes, aren’t you really just giving money to the super charity that is the US government? If people are so willing to donate to charity, why do they bitch so much about taxes?

L: It’s because they’re FORCED. People would give willingly, they just don’t like being told they HAVE to.

S: But then why don’t they even now? Why are charities still woefully underfunded? Why is there still not enough money to charities?

L: Because people are being forced to donate taxes, and so don’t have enough spare money. If they didn’t have to pay taxes, they’d have more money to give, voluntarily, to charities.

S: But again that’s stupid. Sure if you stopped taxes people would have more money. But they’d also now need to pay for things that taxes were paying for. They’d need to pay for private schools for their children. They’d need to pay tolls on what were free roads. They’d probably end up paying more for services and utilities, because history has shown that deregulation tends to drive prices up. People who relied on profit inefficient public transportation probably now have to pay for cars, because the transit lines can’t generate a profit and are scrapped. They’re going to have to cut checks to private security and emergency response companies because they no longer have public police, ambulance and fire departments to protect them. Their insurance rates will probably go up because the insurance isn’t being subsidized any more.

So sure if you cut out taxes they’ll have more money, but that money is going to go right back paying for things that the government used to provide, so it’s not like they’re going to have any more money free at the end of things. In fact, the whole point of taxes, and how they work is that the rich minority subsidizes the poorer majority. The vast bulk of people are a tax drain, by which I mean they receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. If you cut out government spending, these people would probably have even LESS to spend, because it’d cost more to recoup the serves they gained than they were paying for taxes. The only people who could stop paying taxes, pay for services privately, and come out ahead, in all likelihood, are the rich. Which is ironic because they’re the people who you would presume WOULD give to charity anyway, even after taxes, because they could afford to.

So once you cut all these taxes, and want people to donate to private charities, where is this money to donate going to come from, considering most people will have to pay as much, if not more, in private services to subsidize what they were getting from the government (not counting of course all the government employees who are going to be out of a job entirely?

L: I’ll um….I’ll get back to you.

Then they never do.
You assume that I support no taxes, no public services, no Police.

You've been arguing with the wrong kind of Libertarian. Just because I believe one service should not be funded and taxed, doesn't mean I believe all services shouldn't be funded and taxed. I think you confuse 'Libertarianism' with 'Closet Anarchism'

And I like this word, it serves a good point to differentiate between actual Libertarians who have some interesting formed opinions, though ones I disagree with, and internet "lolbertarians" that I'm addressing.

Yeah that's why I use it. There are some really knowledgeable and clever libertarians, like Nozick or even some of the Austrians. I say lolbertarian to make sure they don't get associated with the n00bs.

Do you give the money to a home for pigs with broken wings?

I will when pigs fly.:wink:

and I'm going to ask how you differinate between the lolbertarians and the Libertarians. Because I do have to be honest, the 15 year old who held a rally for Ron Paul in World of Warcraft was well, let's be honest embarrassing.

It's about underlying philosophy. The teenage "lolbertarian" "let's all go vote for Ron Paul...you know...if we could" inevitably fall into weasel words, and overly emotive phrases.

They talk about "force" and "coercion". They discuss how if people were just let to donate of their own free will, they would and we'd all be happy and smiling and dance around the fire singing kumbaya. Everyone will be nice to one another, they just dont want to be forced into it.

Actual somewhat clever Libertarians say fuck all that. Let's not talk about coercion, or force, or any of that. Let's accept that government have a legitimate use of force. Let's accept that government coerce people into doing things all the time, and taxes aren't necessarily evil or bad, they're just inefficient. Let's not talk about getting rid of taxes due to some faux moral teabagging outrage, let's talk about it because they're actually not doing what we want them to do as well as other things will.

Private enterprise is better, they say, because private enterprise stresses efficiency and service. The goverment police will never really, really care about catching the guy who robbed your house, because whether they catch him or not, nothing really happens to them. They're still the only police force in town. And because they have no incentive to catch him, they have no incentive to invest in new techology, no incentive to work harder.

In short, they have no incentive to be efficient. But private companies? Well the argument goes, if you have competition, you better catch that burglar, because if you don't get my stuff back, the next time I need help, it's going to be one of your competitors. And because you have competitors, not only do you have motivation to be a good private security force, you have incentive to do it as cheaply as possible, or get outbid.

That's the idea of economic libertarians, real libertarianism. Forget this bullshit moral outrage stuff. Forget holding hands and private charities. Shit is more efficient when they have a reason to fear competition, and government does not. Thus you're better off simply having no taxes and paying for services because those services will be better for the same price.

It's a better argument, I feel, but still has some cracks in it.

Ahh, thanks for clarifying.

This thread illustrates to me why it is impossible to have a realistic discussion of health care systems in the US -- because CM's ludicriously wrong-headed notions of how things work are, sadly, far from unique to him. So, if we're going to waste time arguing over his (and others') fairy tales about taxes versus charities, fuck it, we may as well cover faith healing -- and potions and space alien viruses while we're at it. At the rate we're going, so few Americans will be able to access health care at all in a few years, it won't matter what is covered. :rolleyes:

This thread illustrates to me why it is impossible to have a realistic discussion of health care systems in the US -- because CM's ludicriously wrong-headed notions of how things work are, sadly, far from unique to him. So, if we're going to waste time arguing over his (and others') fairy tales about taxes versus charities, fuck it, we may as well cover faith healing -- and potions and space alien viruses while we're at it. :rolleyes:

Of course, I suppose you won't be making any arguments against me, just attacking my position with nothing but a lazy comment about how 'Wrong-headed' and crazy my ideas of how things could work are?

This thread illustrates to me why it is impossible to have a realistic discussion of health care systems in the US -- because CM's ludicriously wrong-headed notions of how things work are, sadly, far from unique to him. So, if we're going to waste time arguing over his (and others') fairy tales about taxes versus charities, fuck it, we may as well cover faith healing -- and potions and space alien viruses while we're at it. At the rate we're going, so few Americans will be able to access health care at all in a few years, it won't matter what is covered. :rolleyes:

Hey, space alien viruses are fatal, always! So why even bother covering that? :p

Something that belongs in the only in America thing file hey? Other countries debate whether cosmetic surgery should be covered.

And is acupuncture really not covered under the health care system? What about massages?
Private insurance companies in the US sometimes -- if they choose to -- offer small discounts for certain alternative treatments or "wellness" programs. These can sometimes include acupuncture and massage therapy, as well as vitamin regimens and gym memberships, if they are either (a) treated as therapeutic or (b) treated as preventative (and the given company chooses to encourage preventative care).

Of course, I suppose you won't be making any arguments against me, just attacking my position with nothing but a lazy comment about how 'Wrong-headed' and crazy my ideas of how things could work are?

why reinvent the wheel? The arguments have already been made and you've done nothing to address or counter them, just bitched and whined about how you're being "attacked".

Biofeedback isn't faith healing.

You're misusing the phrase "faith-healing".

why reinvent the wheel? The arguments have already been made and you've done nothing to address or counter them, just bitched and whined about how you're being "attacked".
How so? The only part where I complained about being 'attacked' is where you brought up my age, for lack of a better argument.

Biofeedback isn't faith healing.

You're misusing the phrase "faith-healing".

No rather, the article is.

Oh that explains so much. Ah homeschooling, where the idea of being taught every subject by the same person, who is not a trained teacher, somehow seems like a good idea.

That's not how homeschooling works now. That was 20 years ago.

Sometimes you just gotta love Stumbleupon! when it delievers you an article like this one. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1897498,00.html?iid=tsmodule)

I'm not going to quote the entire article. The basic premise is should faith healing get coverage under a Universal Health Care system? However, this doesn't JUST cover the *hit forehead* "BAM YOU'RE HEALED, PRAISE THE LORD!" but also; acupuncture, biofeedback, herbal medicine, holistic medicine and Reik.

As for me, I think that we should have coverage for herbal medicine, holistic medicine, biofeedback, acupuncture, and Reik. However, the practice of someone praying for someone, or the whole *hits forehead* "YOU CAN WALK AGAIN, PRAISE JESUS!" should not be covered, because it doesn't cost money, so why should it be covered?

Here in Spain, depending on the condition, like hand injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome, same as serious back injuries, acupuncture is considered effective and is covered by health plans and the NHS.

Ahh NSG, the only place where someone who in all likelihood earns no appreciable income talks about how he "quite a bit" to charity. How much could you possibly give?

Neo, that's just ugly.

The personal attack should have stopped around where you accused CM of not having sufficient experience to hold an opinion on the "real world." That is weak, but at least it plays the opinion somewhat.

What answer could CM give, that you would recognize their right to hold an opinion on charity?

Is $150 a week enough? Or have you set the bar of what a poster must do in real life, to deserve to debate with you, so high that the only acceptable answer is "I am Warren Buffet?"

I made fun of faith healing earlier, saying it should be on God's tab instead of the UHC's. Something like that.

But really the only criterion is that the treatment be effective. I really doubt it would work on me (might even be counterproductive) ... so I wouldn't apply for it even if it was completely free of cost to me. Likewise aromatherapy or crystal therapy or whatever.

But the placebo effect is real. If the treatment works on some people, because they expect it to, then why not fund it? The only criterion is how much improvement in health is demonstrated, for how much money.

Separation of church and state I guess. Anyway, I'm moving back to sit on the fence on this one.

You make a rather large mistake, and an assumption, for that matter. I'm home schooled, and have been for quite some time.

This explains much.

I made fun of faith healing earlier, saying it should be on God's tab instead of the UHC's. Something like that.

But really the only criterion is that the treatment be effective. I really doubt it would work on me (might even be counterproductive) ... so I wouldn't apply for it even if it was completely free of cost to me. Likewise aromatherapy or crystal therapy or whatever.

But the placebo effect is real. If the treatment works on some people, because they expect it to, then why not fund it? The only criterion is how much improvement in health is demonstrated, for how much money.

Separation of church and state I guess. Anyway, I'm moving back to sit on the fence on this one.

However, if we extend faith healing to prayer healing, a study conducted by the Templeton Foundation suggests that not only is there no efficacy to prayer, but also that knowledge that one is being prayed for while suffering from an illness actually increases the likelihood of medical complications (possibly due to performance anxiety).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/30/national/a100110S72.DTL&feed=rss.news

Oh that explains so much. Ah homeschooling, where the idea of being taught every subject by the same person, who is not a trained teacher, somehow seems like a good idea.

And Neo once again assumes that all children whom are home schooled are only taught by one person.

Ahh NSG, the only place where someone who in all likelihood earns no appreciable income talks about how he "quite a bit" to charity. How much could you possibly give?

Is the man who earns $10 million a year and donates $1 million a year to charity a better person than the man who earns $100,000 a year and donates $25,000 a year? Perhaps we should look at a proportion of income rather than how much.

Private insurance companies in the US sometimes -- if they choose to -- offer small discounts for certain alternative treatments or "wellness" programs. These can sometimes include acupuncture and massage therapy, as well as vitamin regimens and gym memberships, if they are either (a) treated as therapeutic or (b) treated as preventative (and the given company chooses to encourage preventative care).

Ah I see thanks.