This morning's paper had an AP report on Hillary's health care plan. She said it isn't government run, though the cost to the government would be $110 billion per year, but it is government mandated. The plan requires businesses to provide coverage, and it would require people to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a Medicare inspired federal plan. Richardson and Edwards are kinda pissed at the old girl, calling her basically a "copy-cat" for offering a plan similar to theirs. HEY BOYS!!! YOUR PLANS SUCK, TOO!!!
The sad part is that some of the GOP candidates are suggesting versions of their own. My question for all is, where do you get off demanding that anyone offer anything, or that people purchase what they don't want? Using a number of 47 million uninsured, candidates have postured themselves as caring, compassionate leaders. But according to others, like John Stossel for example, that number includes millions who are young, single adults, for whom health care isn't an issue. It includes millions with the bucks to afford health care on their own terms. It includes many who are in a transition period, meaning they don't have coverage at the moment the stats were assemble, but will have soon with the start of a new gig, but were thrown into the overall number of uninsured. It also includes, illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here anyway. Thus, the number is probably halved at least. And of that number, there is probably a good percentage that are completely irresponsible in their lifestyle choices.
So what of the remainder? Perhaps the focus should be on educating them on what it takes to aquire coverage, how to make better lifestyle choices, how to avoid further complicating their situation. Perhaps the caring, compassionate leaders should be seeking ways to allow for the charitable donating of funds on a voluntary basis for those truly in need. I'll bet that John Edwards can probably lift around 100 families with his own wealth. He feels their pain. He should give till it hurts.
So the problem I have is obvious and simple: where do these Democratic buffoons get off thinking that they are caring, compassionate leaders through the forced donations of those with dough? And where do they get off thinking they can mandate the health care choices of the entire population? Aren't they the party of choice? The whole insurance game is a big pain in the ass as it is, but there is a simple dynamic present within it that is being mucked up by the Dems "compassion". That dynamic is that someone, the insurance company, offers for a premium to cover any medical costs incurred by the insured. It's how they make their money. The health care plans suggested by the Dems would force them to insure those who WILL require medical attention. This will raise the cost of insuring everyone.
What we have here is the Dems creating a concern, health care, and setting themselves up as the saviors. No thanks. Keep your hands out of my wallet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
Health care is an issue in this country because of cost. Unfortunately, the health care debate is centered on who is going to pay for it, rather than why does it cost so much.
First, I think Cameron's comment is right on target - the issue is less who pays, than why it is a country that has the highest per capita outlays for healthcare delivers less bang for the buck overall. Indeed, in countries with socialized medicine, the cost is a fraction of the US, and delivery is more efficient, and all sorts of indicators show it to be much better overall than our own.
The problem is our healthcare system, like everything else in America, is increasingly geared towards the rich, leaving the poor, and the working class to fend for themselves. The healthcare debate isn't about lifestyle choices or stealing your money so the undeserving poor can get a liver transplant to continue their alcoholism. It's about industry bureaucrats denying coverage of necessary procedures; it's about millions being priced out of a system that guarantees preventive healthcare, leaving them at the mercy of emergency rooms, where we end up picking up the tab anyway.
Finally, I love the fact that your compassion for others stops where your money begins. Didn't Jesus tell the rich young ruler to give away all his possessions to the poor before following him? I do believe that might be a place to start looking at this. Just a thought, o Compassionate One.
You're confused, Geoffrey. My concern here is for those that are forced to pay for others, not for those willing to pay for others. That's a big distinction that you seem to insist on ignoring. That I would say "keep your hands out of my wallet" doesn't imply that I'm selfish with my money. It just means that I don't want the Dems to take it by force.
I agree that the costs are high. I don't agree with Geoffrey's ultra-lefty hate-the-rich-and-powerful angle on why. It has a lot more to do with the current attempts at full coverage for all, than it does for lack of complete coverage for all. If the Dems get their hands on this piece of our economy, it will definitely NOT cost less when it's all said and done. That's just lame thinking. They will add coverage for things I don't want or need and I won't have anything to say about it. If you trust Hillary to say that you can keep your current policy, you're a bigger dupe than I would ever suspect. The federal Medicare style plan would price you out. It would cost less, at first, and then the add ons will come.
But the main problem is that choice is removed. That the government controls my health care decisions. Screw that.
As to whether foreign examples of universal health care is superior to ours, I doubt it entirely. Laura Ingraham had a caller who was formerly with the Aussie government and well versed in their health care policies. He was totally warning us off the notion. Mark Steyn has spoken on the subject, as has John Stossel, to name just a couple more, who have demonstrated the failures of such a system by comparison with ours. If you want to wait 2 or more years to get what is now available by the end of the week, move to Europe and enjoy.
And in what dimension is there such a thing as preventative health care that is covered by insurance? I've been to alternative clinics, totally preventative and holistic, and insurance covers very, very little of it. But prevention is as simple as getting a book from the library, for Pete's sake. Take some responsibility and learn a little about how the body works.
You paint a sorrowful, dust-bowl picture of our health care system that is far from accurate, Geoffrey. No one who needs emergency care goes without. Those that have made choices that guarantee their poverty have themselves to blame, but they are still not without resources in this country.
Another thing is malpractice litigation. The costs for insurance for protecting the doctors, as well as the overkill in tests run to prevent being accused of malpractice, has gone a long way toward increasing costs, as well as decreasing the amounts of practices in some states. My wife lost her OB/GYN because of high insurance in Illinois.
The high cost of medical care is due far more to lefty chuckleheads who buy votes by promising free everything, than the cartoonish greed of the wealthy. Geared towards the rich my ass.
Actually, it has everything to do with a system bloated by private bureaucracy, flush with too much paperwork, all bent on "cutting costs" by denying coverage for whatever reason du jure comes along. And I do not see a distinction that you try to create between voluntarily giving and the legal redistribution of resources through taxation and regulation.
Your wallet isn't that precious, Marshall.
What does that sign mean that you read when sitting in an emergency room waiting room? It says something about care not being denied. In my area, welfare people have Medicaid. When I was a poor kid growing up, my parents never drew welfare and we only went to the Doctor when it was absolutely necessary and then the bill was paid by my parents (lots of times in installments I'm sure). Seems to me that the non-worker gets benefits.
You quote Mark Steyn and John Stossel as if either had any credibility at all. Sorry, but I am neither confused nor ignorant. The vast majority of Americans want a system that is more fair, easier, less expensive, and with access to all. And they are quite willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that aim. By ending at a stroke the paper-trail required by insurance companies - the bulk of the overhead they tend to whine about - costs would plummet. As for your disdain for the uninsured, let me just say I am underwhelmed by your compassion. I have yet to read a word about the possibility that those who are poor might actually not be so through no fault of their own, but the warping of a system the pauperizes an increasingly large share of the American populace.
Of course, this brings up a whole host of other issues - such as worker hours and flex time, paid sick, family, and maternity/paternity leave, mandated vacation time (anywhere from two to six weeks a year in the rest of the industrialized world) - of which health insurance is only a part. Most companies manage to do quite well in foreign countries where these rules apply. I see no reason other than simple greed not to apply them here. Sacrificing immense profits for the good of the whole society seems a bit of a small price to pay.
Come on, Marshall. Your money, or their lives.
When has the Federal Government managed ANYTHING efficiently, and under budget-- forget 'cost-effective'? $110B in Hillaryspeak translates to somewhere in the neighborhood of 600B within the first 3 years. If not sooner.
I for one am VERY glad the focus is on WHO will pay for it. The government is intrusive enough as it is, without adding socialized medicine to the mix.
I refer to Steyn and Stossel BECAUSE of their credibility, unless of course you have something real that would put that in doubt. Just because you don't like what they say doesn't in any way detract from their creds. Yours, however, is suspect.
For example, which poll are you citing to support your contention that most people want universal socialist health care? I'd like to review the questions. Do people want to pay less for health care, medical costs, insurance, a gallon of gas, a loaf of bread, a bag of weed? Yeah, sure. Is this your idea of a newsflash?
You do not see the distinction between voluntary giving and legal theft of the fruits of the labors of others, because you produce nothing, most likely. What kind of business do you run, how many employees work for you, what do you produce, and how much do you make per year? Where do you get off dictating to anyone how much they should give to another, and what makes you think it garners you any brownie points with the Almighty to do so? How dare you suggest that you are in any position to determine the worth of another's labors and efforts.
Further more, what evidence or data can you offer to support your contention about the current costs of health care in this country?
I gotta tell ya, Geoffrey. It really frosts me to continually hear lefties expect others to pay for the troubles in the world. When are YOU guys gonna get your hands dirty? You're always putting it on the wealthy. Here's a clue for ya: there's plenty of lefty rich. Why get them all together and force THEM to give till it hurts. Why dig in your OWN freakin' pockets for a change?
And finally, Mr. Judgemental Holier Than Thou, you have no clue as to my level of compassion for my fellow man. It better fits your preconceived notions of the right to suspect that we are somehow greedy and self-serving. But reality is foreign to you. If you want to know specifics, ask. If you want to cast aspersions, give it your best shot, but know that it makes you a major hypocrite to suppose you know MY heart and MY world.
We have already a similar system with automobile insurance. You cannot own a car without buying insurance for it. In most states, you are not allowed to drive without car insurance. We are forced to buy insurance whether we want it or not. We are forced to buy it whether we can afford it or not. And when we need it, we hve to pay a large portion of the repair bill anyway.
The sweetest gig in this country right now is a car insurance company. They know you have to have it so they charge whatever they can get away with. It's legalized, government supported extortion.
Cameron is correct. The problem is not who will p;ay for it but on the cost of health care itself. I've said this for years. Health care costs are out of control. There is no ceiling on what the health care industry can charge for their services and goods, and as long as there isn't, health care will always be a problem regardless of who pays for it.
Who will rein in the glut on the government coffers when the health care industry begins to charge the government 2,000 dollars for a simple office visit? think it can't happen? Remember those $800.00 hammers?
I'm rambling already and I haven't even scratched the surface of the problems that will be caused by government health care.
Oh and Geoffrey, If you really think socialized medicine is more efficient, why do you suppose Canadians (including HillBillary's Liberal friends) travel to the United States for medical treatment?
The costs are skewed due to our current system of coverage and regulations. As I indicated, malpractice insurance plays a part in not only what might be charged, but whether there's even a health care provider at all.
But it has to be looked at in this way:
On both ends of the spectrum, care giver AND receiver, the lack of competition has negatively affected health care.
On the receiver side, the personal responsibility for caring for one's self is lessened with the knowledge that insurance is there waiting to take care of the cost. This drives up the need for insurance coverage, as people no longer take extra care in their lifestyle decisions.
On the supplier side, the lack of competition means that charges are no problem. With insurance coverage, it doesn't matter what the doctor reccommends because the insurance companies will cover it. In addition, I re-iterate that the need to protect one's self against litigation means that doctors insist on tests and treatments that otherwise would not be given in order to cover every imaginable base. This costs money.
And while claims are put in left and right for every hangnail and sniffle, insurance companies are expected to keep costs low, as if there is a bottomless well of money.
The main point here is that universal coverage exacerbates an already costly system. Health care coverage has become an entitlement in the minds of far too many, and this mentality has affected the way people live their lives. Any time you mess with the money, you alter the actions of the people. Thus, the emphasis has to be on leading the people to do what they should be doing anyway, living responsibly. If the need for medical services goes down, the price for the services will follow. Now, everything is geared toward increasing the demand and costs will continue to soar as universal coverage will compound that mentality. In addition, as we see in countries where this system is employed, there will emerge guidlines that inevitably restrict care, rather than provide for everyone, due to an overstressed pool of resources.
Universal care is a typical response by the left to a dilemma of their own making. The welfare mentality of the left has done more to create the cost crisis than anything else. Universal care will create dependant people instead of independant, responsible people making good choices in their lives. Once again, No Thanks!
ekashley writes:
"When has the Federal Government managed ANYTHING efficiently, and under budget-- forget 'cost-effective'?"
Let's start with World War II. Rural Electrification. The GI Bill of Rights. TVA. Head Start. The interstate highway system. The Postal system.
This is one of those truly ignorant questions one hears all the time, posed by someone who thinks they know something, but only proving they really don't know all that much after all.
Oops. I meant "elashley", not "eKashley". Sorry about that.
Uhhh.... Last time I checked Geoffrey, World War II wasn't a huge government entitlement program. And the Democrats didn't win it... the American PEOPLE did.
Let's see... Rural electrification wasn't a huge government entitlement program either, but rather a necessary upgrade of essential national infrastructure.
The G.I. Bill of Rights doesn't really count since it only affects a small segment of the population; one that Democrat politicians seem to despise of late.'
TVA? Tennessee Valley Authority? Limited to what? Seven states?
Head Start? That's not a government entitlement program. A bit of a drain on the tax payers, but what program instituted by government isn't?
The interstate highway system? Again, I-N-F-R-A-S-T-R-U-C-T-U-R-E, and NOT and entitlement program.
The U.S. Postal Service! The one government entity that DOES NOT rely on the American tax payer for operational costs or payroll.... That's why we pay for stamps, and why the price of stamps goes up every couple years. But thanks for this example of a federal institution that actually runs well.... because government doesn't run it!
I find it curious that the Cold War was won-- no thanks to Democrats --against the "Scourge" of Communism, and yet a mere 20 years later, THANKS to Democrats, America is moving inexorably toward its own insidious brand of Socialism.
Has anyone bothered to look at the particulars of HillaryCare? It's a bad deal. A very bad deal.
I don't claim that health care in America is anywhere near perfect-- far from it in fact. But federalizing health care would be a huge disaster.
Of all the examples Geoffrey offered he omitted Social Security, which is a colossal Ponzi Scheme on the verge of collapse if ever there was one. Even curiouser is how Senate and House members have enacted their own private brand of social security for themselves while apoplectically decrying the idea of Americans being given the opportunity to divert some of THEIR payroll taxes to private retirement investment accounts.
I'D like to see Congress abolish earmark spending altogether. Not a single dollar should ever be spent by these clowns-- Democrat OR Republican --without the benefit of public scrutiny on the floor of the House or Senate... and a straight up or down vote! How much money would THAT save the American tax payer...
But you can bet Democrats [indeed, ALL of Congress!] will manage to exempt themselves from any socialized medicine abomination they foist upon the American taxpayer. They're famous for enacting laws they conveniently exempt themselves from.
You want an honest to God boondoggle of an entitlement program? I've got two for you:
1. The House of Representatives, and...
2. The Senate
Throw all the bums out an create a national lottery. Service by lottery.
Impractical I know, but wouldn't that be a more interesting experiment than allowing those buffoons to experiment with healthcare?
This is one of those truly ignorant questions one hears all the time, posed by someone who thinks they know something, but only proving they really don't know all that much after all.>
This post by geoffrey brings to my mind what he said his dad said to him. Maybe you need to consider his words before you say the above things to someone else.
ELAshley, your question wasn't about "entitlements" - you asked whether the government had ever done anything successfully. As for your distinction between the American people and the American government, last time I checked, the American people are the government. That's why they are called "public servants" and "civil service".. Once again, you only prove your are more impressed with your own ideology than facts.
Bye for now.
My question was about socialized medicine, which in the minds of many Americans amounts to yet another wasteful entitlement program.
But before you and I get off to a bad start, I think it's safe to say, at the outset, that neither of us know the other from Adam's house-cat. That being said, when I read statements like...
"...posed by someone who thinks they know something, but only proving they really don't know all that much after all."
Well, I can get snarky too; and smug with my own sense of importance and enlightenment. But I'd rather not go there.
You believe what you believe to be true above and beyond most everyone else's beliefs... just like everyone else, myself included. But like I said, I don't know you, and will therefore ignore the aforementioned ignorant statement you posted in response to my own...
A good rule of thumb. Personally, snarkiness doesn't bother me. I can give and take it equally well. At least I think I can. But all in all, ignoring the snark for the sake of the underlying comment is best.
For Geoffrey,
I have been reading a bit about the S-CHIPS program (if I have the acronym correct). Now I'm wondering if YOU understand what's going on. Your admonishments regarding Bush's plan to veto the Congress version is misleading. I'm deciding whether to address it here, as it is a health care issue, or to begin a new thread. Prolly a new thread.
Art, it's your blog, so you can let anyone comment on here that you want, but if I were you, I wouldn't allow Geoffrey to comment until he stops being a pretentious elitist snob and quits thinking he's so damn superior to everyone else. My God, that wasn't just snarky, it was flat out insulting. What an effete jerk! The jerk actually thinks he is more intelligent than anyone else, and that simply couldn't be true. If he had any brains, he'd be a Republican.
Judging from just a casual glance at Geoffrey's blog I thought perhaps he WAS Conservative. But he seems to favor ER with a lot of praise... nothing wrong with that, mind you, I personally like ER... I just don't like his Religion.
Or his politics for that matter...
But aside from those two topics I get along just fine with ER, so I have no doubt I can do the same with Geoff. I don't comment here as often as I'd like, and I feel somewhat like an interloper (though I know Art doesn't see it as such), therefore I'm taking as tactful an approach as I can with Geoff... Respect given (as much as is possible for me) whether I get it back or not.
As I stated previously, I don't really know anything about Geoff so I'm choosing to refrain from "snarkiness."
Peace.
"Geoffrey to comment until he stops being a pretentious elitist snob and quits thinking he's so damn superior to everyone else."
Even though I rarely comment here, I ENJOY reading Geoffrey's comments, and, IMHO, his opinions and the perspective he brings ARE superior to those of you who aim to suppress him.
"What an effete jerk!"
You've got some nerve to attack Geoffrey on such grounds when your avatar makes you look like the stereotypical Chelsea size queen!
You are simply taking what you hate in yourself, and projecting it onto Geoffrey, because you don't have the facility to cope with your own issues.
"What we have here is the Dems creating a concern, health care, and setting themselves up as the saviors. No thanks. Keep your hands out of my wallet."
Funny. I say the same thing about the "global war on terror..."
Well that's just downright silly, Dan. The WOT is a reality as anyone with common sense can tell. It wasn't made up by anyone on the Republican side, which is what you foolishly hope to get across. That kind of crapola just doesn't fly anywhere except where libs breed and pretend they understand the world.
"Funny. I say the same thing about the "global war on terror...""
What a foolish name.
How can a nation wage war on a tactic?
The MOMENT Americans got wind of this foolishness, they should have joined me in denouncing the idiocy of it.
Why do Americans have to LOSE a war before they actually begin to question it?
It seems I riled some feathers, especially Mark's. I can only say, in response to his comments, that I most certainly do not think I am smarter than everyone else, although I do have the unfortunate habit of being both pedantic and dismissive instead of patient and thoughtful. I apologize for the occasional tone of lese majeste that can enter my comments, and I do try to work at it.
On the other hand, I would never attack someone personally. I wouldn't say, "Geez, Mark, I've checked out your blog and you're an ignorant boob!" I might say that I found some of your facts in error, or I might disagree with your views, but there is nothing personal about that. I didn't say that ELAshley was stupid; I merely said that his comment reflected a certain ideological position that ignored salient facts. That's all. We can disagree, even quite forcefully, about what it is he meant, and how much and how far my own criticism of his views was accurate, but I did not and never would do the equivalent of saying, "Gee, you're dumb."
The blogosphere is a pretty rough and tumble place, and you need to develop a think skin rather quickly if you are going to survive out here. Marshall is an expert at snark, and I often enjoy his reparte, even if I disagree with him on most issues. I continue to link to him even as his readership expands far beyond my own, and his comment sections tend to become wonderfully alive forums for debate, argument, discussion, and back-and-forth. I continue to come here because, while we disagree, I am never not challenged, which is always a good thing.
Anyway, Mark, I will be sure in the future to preface any comments I make with the disclaimer that I am not effete, nor do I think I am smarter than everyone else (or even anyone else). I will also try to be a little nicer, since you seem off-put by the strong expression of opinion.
"I will be sure in the future to preface any comments I make with the disclaimer that I am not effete, nor do I think I am smarter than everyone else (or even anyone else)"
DING DING DING!
Whoops, there goes my BS detector!
In case you were wondering, Mark, I was being facetious. I have encountered you elsewhere, and have said that I am not fond of anti-intellectualism. I cannot help that I (a) am well-educated; (b) continue to read and educate myself on any number of topics and subjects; (c) have a large vocabulary. I am not purposely haughty, nor do I lord it over others. This is who I am.
I thought it was pretty clear that I offer my views as just that - my views. I am as likely wrong as I am right, and readily admit that. Yet, what am I to do? You do no different than I - offer your views. The difference between us, I do believe, is that I refuse to lie back and take it. A liberal with a spine! Imagine! Your BS meter may have just gone off, but you haven't said word one that actually contradicts what I have written. Calling something out as BS only works when you say why.
Effete, by the way, means effeminate. If you meant that as an insult, I didn't quite take it that way, because I don't consider the whole feminine-masculine thing to have any meaning. An effete elitist, to me, is someone who knows how to pronounce Van Gogh's name right (see Annie Hall) and can tell the difference between a Verdi and Puccini opera by the opening notes of the overture. An effete elitist is someone who can explain, in gory detail, the difference between chardonnay and burgundy.
I, on the other hand, am a pretty normal guy, with a bit of schooling, who believes that the country is headed down a very steep path to oblivion thanks to our current executive administration. I also think the American people tend to be wiser and more astute than do our political elites (the real elites, by the way, are those with power; I have none, and I wonder if you do, either) and it might be nice if they were listened to for once. In that sense, I am a populist, because I trust the people.
"I also think the American people tend to be wiser and more astute than do our political elites...and it might be nice if they were listened to for once."
They listened on amnesty.
"In that sense, I am a populist, because I trust the people."
But you don't trust them to choose their own health care. Hillary's plan will erode such choice and put people in a position of having to pay for coverage they might not want or need.
"What a foolish name.
How can a nation wage war on a tactic?"
What a foolish ploy. Leave it to you to make an issue out of such a thing. Do you suppose this adds to your list of grievances against Bush & Co? It doesn't matter what it is called, everyone knows who the enemy is, even if you choose to pretend they don't exist.
"The MOMENT Americans got wind of this foolishness, they should have joined me in denouncing the idiocy of it."
Don't worry, Hash. There's plenty of lunatics out there who will agree with you.
"Why do Americans have to LOSE a war before they actually begin to question it?"
Harry Reid would love you. So that would make 1. BTW, we aren't losing. One doesn't lose just because one hasn't yet won, or because the situation is still ongoing. But hey, when the going gets tough, Hash and Harry Reid get the hell out. Boy, what American spirit!
"You've got some nerve to attack Geoffrey on such grounds when your avatar makes you look like the stereotypical Chelsea size queen!"
You are now required to post your own picture before commenting again, or, apologize to Mark for such a personal and uncalled for remark. Geoffrey's a big boy and can deal with Mark just fine without you supposing you're clever.
"You are now required to post your own picture before commenting again, or, apologize to Mark for such a personal and uncalled for remark."
Yeah, that'll happen.
Hold your breath, moishele.
I guess Hashforbrains has volunteered to be the first one banned from Marshall Art's. Why am I not surprised?
Marshall says:
"But you don't trust them to choose their own health care."
Who said that I said that? As a matter of fact, there are many things about Sen. Clinton's health care proposal I do not like, not the least of them being that, rather than build on existing plans, such as Medicare, she creates a multi-tiered system, leaving in place the bloated, over-bureaucratized, spend-thrift insurance system that seeks to minimize its costs as much as possible.
Be that as it may, since the vast majority of Americans favor single-payer, government funded health care (which is far cheaper than our current system, as shown by the phenomenal savings in European health care systems), I do believe that I still trust the people, not so much in choosing their won health care, as in understanding that that is not the issue.
By the way, I have a response to your comments on S-CHIP over at home. Check it out.
"...since the vast majority of Americans favor single-payer..."
Where are you getting this? I'd really like to see the poll and how the questions were asked. Polls are for crap. I know it gives some people a clue as to how others might think, but generally, they are mis-used to attain a desired result.
I haven't made my S-CHIP comments yet!
"Why am I not surprised?"
Why would you be, since that's always been your plan to begin with?
It always cracks me up to see I've been brought up in a thread in which I haven't even weighed in. Hoot, and again I say, hoot!
Re, "I personally like ER... I just don't like his Religion."
I don't have a religion, EL. I dismiss almost all doctrine as a matter of course, and I think any theology that does not basically follow I'm-not-God-God-loves-all-enough-to-DIE-for-them-as-an-act-of-Grace-and-as-an-example-for-His-followers-to-follow as fearful, manmade horse crap.
So, I don't know what you mean. Oh, I do, too. You don't like the way I follow Jesus! Well. I don't like the way you follow Jesus, either. I think yer chasin' yer own tail. So, what?
Re, G.W.O.T. -- just as ill-thought-out as the War oon Poverty, the War on Drugs, and every other stupid gloss over a very dangerous and crucial reality -- and, like the others, used to misuse this nation's treasure and its truthfulness for a purely political aim that could not care less about the security of the country. Yep. I said that.
"Art, it's your blog, so you can let anyone comment on here that you want, but if I were you, I wouldn't allow Geoffrey to comment until he stops being a pretentious elitist snob and quits thinking he's so damn superior to everyone else."
he's absolutely right, art: it is your blog....
KEvron
"It wasn't made up by anyone on the Republican side"
it absolutely so was made up. traditionally, terrorism has been prosecuted by police agencies, local, federal and international. chimpco invented the war against a tactic.
KEvron
How do you prosecute a tactic?
Oh, don't pay Kevron no never mind, Cameron. He's only here because he has a major hard on for Mark. He dogs him whenever possible. Once in a while he'll throw out some pat liberal comment just to seem involved.
Hash,
My intention has always been to provide a decent venue for discussion and debate that caters to those with a thought and a sense of humor. Anyone who gets banned was looking to be banned by crossing the traditional lines of civility. This would include not remarking on someone's looks when you don't have the sack to post your own likeness for all to mock. One who pretends to be a thoughtful individual as yourself should understand such basic rules of society. Not to worry. I'll be happy to point out when you've again failed to abide those rules.
ER,
Of COURSE you have a religion and a doctrine. Just because you won't name it or align yourself with others doesn't mean a thing. What YOU'RE saying is you don't want to be labeled, isn't that more accurate? But that's all a little pretentious, don't you think?
"Oh, don't pay Kevron no never mind"
way to nip it in the bud, marsh! lol!
KEvron
"How do you prosecute a tactic?"
you don't. you prosecute persons for their crimes. it's the chimp who has targeted the tactic.
but even that is inaccurate: our chimp has declared war on terror. six flags had better dig in....
KEvron
No, Marshall, I don't think so. Not at all.
Show me the pretention. I think you've misused the word.
"Show me the pretention. I think you've misused the word."
Perhaps a bit. But it's in the way you seek to set yourself apart with your claim of "I don't have a religion, EL. I dismiss almost all doctrine as a matter of course..." that kinda makes you special, doesn't it? I mean, you're so above it all with such a claim. At least that's the way it comes off, whether you mean it to or not, and therein lies the pretention (as I see it).
I would also say your incredibly elongated multi-hyphenated theology IS the basics of every Christian religion. From where I sit, which is in my basement right now, I'd say it's the "non-traditional" modernist take on Christianity where one finds the most man-made crap (aside from Roman Catholic rituals. But then, their adding stuff is what provoked protest). We fundies just stick with the handbook.
"that kinda makes you special, doesn't it? I mean, you're so above it all with such a claim."
sounds more like a case of your own projection. one might easily argue, and with just as much evidence, that er's philosophy positions him below it all, that it makes him quite unremarkable.
"At least that's the way it comes off, whether you mean it to or not, and therein lies the pretention (as I see it)."
outrageous rationalization.
er, this guy's a waste of your time.
an excellent use of my time, however....
KEvron
Man, I got to learn to edit before I hit send!
LOL. Yer probably right, Kev. But MA *is* interesting.
No, MA. I am not setting myself apart from you. I am pointing out that you and those like you try to set yourselves apart from me and others like me -- the historical main stream of the faith. Y'all fundamentalists, specifically Scofield-quotin' dispensationalist, inerrantist, Bible worshipers, who have set yourselves apart from the historical trunk of the faith, which concentrates on what Jesus apparently said more than what others have said about Jesus.
I am pointing out *your* pretention -- your claim to hang onto the "handbook" and its jots and tittles rather than clinging to the gist of the radically inclusive story IN the handbook.
I'm just a plain ol' regular Christian doubter. Yer the one who thinsk he has all, or at leasdt most, of the answers. Unless I totally misread you. :-)
Not that what we believe matters that much - as long as at the end of the day, or the hour, or the minute, we both just shut the hell up and cling to God as we understand God through Christ.
September 26, 2007 10:22 PM
... well, I guess I said what I meant to say, just not perfectly clearly. Sigh. Late. Tired. ...
Didn't mean to rile you ER.
Would you mind telling me here or via email exactly what it is you believe the "Trunk of the faith" entails? I am genuinely curious.
GK-S:
Agreed. Too much bloat in HillaryCare. Better to reform what we already have than piling on a bejillion more layers of bureaucracy. Personally, I'd like to see a separation of "church and state," if you will, in the medical profession... a higher wall of separation between drug companies and government agencies. I'd also like to see fewer Viagra clocks on the walls of my doctor's office [there's one in the lab with a little blue pill on the end of the second-hand... and it totally creeps me out! I keep hearing Bill Haley and the Comets singing "C--K Around the Clock"].
The education of doctors needs to change as well. Being someone who is intimately and acutely aware of the inadequacies inherent in American medicine-- primarily in the mentality of much of its practitioners --it is all too evident that drug companies have their hands in education as well as in treatment of disease and condition.
When the medical profession is taught to look at disease and conditions as something to be cured rather than managed... well, I just might have more faith in Western medicine. But the changes I'd like to see can't happen without reeducating the population: Basically, teach everyone what is and is not "food." Hint: Twinkies are NOT food. Nor is Hamburger Helper. Our food supply is severely tainted with additives, hormones, excitotoxins, even petroleum based products. Diet soda's alone are pure poison. For all our intelligence and modern technology we've become a nation of dietary morons. Childhood obesity and now "Adult Onset" [Type 2] Diabetes in Children? You can blame happy meals, and High Fructose Corn Syrup for that... among other equally deadly substances in our food supply.
We need to reform the bureaucracy of healthcare FIRST, and begin to repair the dietary mindset of millions of Americans. Food is supposed to taste good, but not so good it becomes addictive... this is unnatural, and we're paying a heavy toll in healthcare costs because of it.
HillaryCare, specifically-- or ANY brand of socialized medicine for that matter --does nothing to address the problems we all face as Americans consuming the typical American diet, namely disease. Think about it; most diseases are a result of what we put on or into our bodies; bodies that don't know what to do with all the man-made chemicals in skin care products, and in our food.
Does anyone here know that Crisco is not a natural substance? Try putting an open can in your garage... nothing will eat it... bugs will die in it, but they won't eat it. You won't find a trail of ants trying to carry it off, one sticky pat at a time. I'd like to know just who was the complete and utter moron who thought up the idea of mixing sugar and vanilla into Crisco to make cake frosting....
Anyway... that's my healthcare rant. Fix it by fixing America's attitude toward the food it eats...
Oh! For anyone interested, the next installment in my own medical journey is posted at my place
It's as simple as this, EL.
God's revelation to man is Jesus Christ -- not stories, either written or spoken, *about* Jesus Christ, not the Bible.
The revelation is found IN the Bible. It is not THE Bible.
Faith comes by hearing? Yes. And hearing by the Word of God -- and that's JESUS CHRIST himself, not the writings about him.
That's what I'm saying. Jesus is the trunk of the faith, not the Bible, not the church, not doctrine, not nothing else.
When Jesus said, "Follow me" to the first ones, there WAS no Bible, there WAS no church and there wsn't even any doctrine. Some of all that's useful, but some of it's harmful because it detracts from Jesus himself. And it all is an addition to Jesus and his main message, which was not WORSHIP me, but FOLLOW me, and as he lived out the very Jewish concept of "Love God, love your neighbor as yourself."
ER,
I appreciate the clarification, but this is a bit muddy. First of all, I find it hard to believe that there are too many who worship the Bible rather than simply hold fast to what is said within it, as it is the source of our knowledge of God. In fact, it is there that we learn the difference between what the Pharisees thought God meant and Jesus' clarification of what God meant. But, if we are to follow Jesus, does that not mean we are to follow his example, and doesn't His example include adherance to God's Will and Commandments, which is what He even taught? Where else can any clue to that be found except in Scripture? In other words, when we are to "Love God" and/or follow Christ, on who's terms are we to proceed? Given that Christ so often quoted Scripture, it seems plain that HE held fast to it's teachings, but I doubt that He was worshipping the Jewish Scripture anymore than those you accuse of such.
Yeah, nothing to do with HillaryCare, but that's OK.
Re, "Where else can any clue to that be found except in Scripture?"
Nowhere. Scripture has plenty of clues. It does not, however, have as many clear answers as many people believe. Because it is, in fact, a bit muddy.
Faith does not require certainty. Certainty does not equal faith. Sigh ... I admit to having a bit of the mystic in me, but if the only Jesus Christ anyone knows is just that that is described in Scripture, them they are only standing at the starting point of the journey of the Christian faith. If that! Because some people who meet Christ while totally ignorant of the details and "doctrines" of Scripture then get sent back a step or three by getting hung up on the dang jots and tittles of the Bible.
I don't think it is the jots and tittles of the Bible that sends people back or sets them back or whatever, it would more likely be the weird teachings of some of the false prophets that does that.
"Scripture has plenty of clues. It does not, however, have as many clear answers as many people believe. Because it is, in fact, a bit muddy."
But it has more clear answers than people want to hear. Muddiness is helpful to those people so they smear the mud to cover and obscure some of those answers. And to expand a bit on Mom2's point, if I may be so bold, those confounded and confused by those jots and tittles may lack a sound teacher to properly explain them.
Of course, I just disagree with those last two comments. I know some peopel do, but I do not know anyone who purposefully twists Scripture to mean something that it doesn't seem to mean. I DO know people who so squeeze the life out of the words that they stifle the Word!
I think it's pretty brash for anyone to point to a person who, by his own profession, is seeking God's will and trying to follow Jesus and trying to love God and neighbor, and call himn or her a false prophet. I think some of the yahoos on TV are crazy as loons, but besides Robert Tilton and Bennie Hinn, I don't consider them false prophets.
And, I think it's equally brash for anyone to point to a person and declare him or her a sound teacher -- especially if that means "someone I agree with."
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush again. :-) Fortunately for all, I'm way busy today. Stupid work. :-)
Jeremiah 23 speaks of false prophets and empty oracles. Verse 14 mentions strengthening the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. That is one reason that the truth of the gospel in its' entirety is important. We are guilty in a degree when we allow false doctrine.
Sorry, we got off track of the post here.
"I'm just a plain ol' regular Christian doubter."
it's always struck me that faith and doubt are opposite sides of the same coin; you can't have faith without some doubt. it's the doubt that makes it faith rather than certainty.
KEvron
Faith and doubt are the only side of a one-sided coin!
(Hey, Kev!)
That's right ER, a "Spiritual" Mobius strip.
Do what? ... Lemme look that up ...
Ah.
Yes. :-)
Post a Comment