Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Responding to PT

In response to Brian, various posts posted by paper_turtle:

Just because something is labeled "socialized" and/or just because someone calling himself a socialist first thought of the idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea OR that if we accept this ONE idea we will slide into full-blown socialism.

Agreed, but if something IS socialistic (not labeled or thought of by a socialist - but actually IS socialistic), then I would consider that a bad thing. At least for a nation-state.

As far as the slide, once you nationalize/socialize one industry, you're on a slippery slope. It would be just about impossible to STOP at the socialization of medicine. You would HAVE to follow with socializing other, related industries. Next target: the insurance industry.

As I pointed out in another thread a while ago, early Christian communities were communistic--assets were shared on common.

Let's be careful with our terms. You're applying a Marxist era term to a 1st century congregation of Christian believers. The early church would NOT have been Marxist. But...

Consider what they did. They were "in one accord" in their commitment to Jesus Christ and the spread of His Word - and they were doing so in a fairly hostile environment (one that would get MORE hostile as the years went on - until Constantine in the 4th century). They covenanted together in one of the most tangible ways that they could - by holding all their property in common. They were NOT forming a nation-state or a country. They were building a church and were spreading the Gospel of Jesus.

Here in the US the Amana colony was a Christian communistic community, and highly successful for quite a long time.

I don't doubt that communism/socialism can have some limited success at a SMALL-SCALE level. But it's NOT workable at a nation-state level, not without turning the government into a powerful totalitarian regime that tramples on the human rights of its people. See North Korea. See China (though they are opening up more - by transitioning to a free market economy). See Cuba. See Venezuela.

We already do this through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other services. We also force those of us who do not believe in war to support the military.

I'm not questioning the government's right to tax. My point on obligating the people is -- Where do we stop?

The more things you put in the "guaranteed rights" or "entitlement" category, the MORE taxes you have to raise and the more POWER you have to have over your people to carry out those obligations. You canNOT - or at least should NOT - ignore this.

What's more, there is a LIMIT as to how much you can tax the people before it hurts productivity and interferes with the ability of families to provide for and support themselves. It isn't just a moral/political issue, but a practical one.

As for defense, I admire your commitment to peace, PT. But it's naive to think that a modern nation can survive without a strong national defense. Basic political philosophy (see John Locke for example) as well as common sense DICTATE that a nation needs a military to defend itself and its security interests. So, yes, people who live in that country should be obligated to support the PROTECTION of the country they live in.

» pink101 - Responding to PT

In response to Responding to PT posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Those are some pretty lame arguments, Brian.
.
They only amount to a "Just because I said so" commentary.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Responding to PT

In response to Responding to PT posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Next target: the insurance industry.
.
Now yer talking! That industry NEEDS to be targeted.
.
...there is a LIMIT as to how much you can tax the people before it hurts productivity and interferes with the ability of families to provide for and support themselves. It isn't just a moral/political issue, but a practical one.
.
How can a middle income parent afford $900 a month for private medical insurance - AND pay taxes for government assistance programs - AND still provide for and support their families? How can a small business afford employee medical benefits and workman's comp when the premiums equal half the employee's annual wage? Have you ever heard the phrase 'insurance poor'?
.
Right now, tax payers pay the medical premiums and costs for somebody else on government assistance. Now, I don't mind helping the needy. But I'd much prefer to pay higher taxes for something which ~I~ and my family (and everyone) can benefit from directly - which I've (we've) paid for.
.
But it's naive to think that a modern nation can survive without a strong national defense.
.
Strong defense is fine. IF it was used for DEFENSE. Imagine how we could fund national health care if we just insisted that the military be accountable for expenditures. There's SOOO much waste, corruption, and profiteering involved with the military, and you know it.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Responding

In response to Responding to PT posted by Migisi:
.
"... a strong national defense."
.
Do we have a strong national defense?
.
I don't think we could withstand an all out and concerted attack by a group of nations against us. And, there are enough nations out there getting more and more upset with us by the day.
.
This current administration has foolishly wasted precious resources as well as the life and physical well being of our heroic military men and women not to mention their mental well being. Our nation is careening to massive failure as a democratic society as we are divided over subsidiary issues.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Defense

Once you become a superpower - and in our case, THE leading superpower of the world - it isn't enough to just wall off your borders and have a strong military at home. You HAVE to have an extended presence via economic relations, diplomatic relations - and (YES) -- military bases, intelligence assets, naval forces, alliances, etc., etc.

I agree, Migisi, that there's waste and corruption in our military - but I think that's ACROSS THE BOARD in every department and agency in the federal government.

» Brian Tubbs - Insurance

In response to Responding to PT posted by Migisi:

Migisi, you're just confirming what I'm saying....

If the US government moves to nationalize - to take CONTROL - of the medical industry, it will then HAVE to follow that up by assuming control of the insurance industry. (Pink, that's not a "lame" argument - it's a logical inevitability).

And once the government has nationalized health care and insurance, it will PROBABLY have to nationalize part (perhaps all) of the legal industry. Litigation is one of the biggest reasons why health care costs are so high! And that is a FACT!

So, you'll have at least 2 and a half or 3 full industries - HUGE industries, mind you - under federal control!

I imagine it won't stop there.

» pink101 - Insurance

In response to Insurance posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Pink, that's not a "lame" argument - it's a logical inevitability
.
So YOU say.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Insurance

In response to Insurance posted by BrianTubbs:

We have a national health system, a universal free public treatment system. And the private health insurance industry is regulated by a 30% tax rebate we get IF we're privately insured. Aims to encourage us off the free system. The funds can't increase their fees without government approval nor offer insurance against the gap ie between the doctor's fee and the refund nor offer refunds for certain operations.

The compensation litigation industry has been dealt a body blow with changes to the law greatly reducing liability and payouts. When it comes to the legal industry, all the people facing terrorist charges have access to barristers etc far beyond the ordinary folk's reach.

We have much 'control' here unless you are referring to absolute control, whatever that means. So I'm guessing the USA could do worse than adopt our current system. UNLESS we all get behind the movement to become a republic with a Bush-like President.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Insurance

In response to Insurance posted by redback:

.
So, do the two systems compete with each other?
.
How well does either system work?
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Health Care

In response to Health Care posted by Pink:

This is a case of my post yesterday disappearing today and then re-appearing with your response. How did you make that happen? ABC

I've read with interest discussions over in 'Health' about the impact and complications of, your health system..Canada's access to welfare as well as yours. Some of the comment was subjective but overall, our system seems to provide a greater 'safety net' even with the introduction of 'mutual obligation'. But as a stand alone, our universal health system seems far better. Even our PBS (pharmaceutical benefits scheme) threatened the success of our FTA with you...meaning you guys saw its value.

And our taxes cop another reduction this year.

-- posted by redback