Jesus was a commie...

[manifold]

Truly? Been to the ghost town lately?

No I haven't.

Is it really that deserted?

 

[Ravi]

People have taken to responding to lyons.

lol

 

[manifold]

People have taken to responding to lyons.

lol

That deserves a big fat...




DOIL!

 

[frazzledgear]

indeed.. which is why we see conservatives trying so hard to defund the military all the time, eh? After all.. the guberment is never efficient, eh?

your statement is as silly as me claiming that all christians are scum sucking abortion clinic bombers. It sounds good but is not really reflective of the facts, eh?

Government rarely does anything more efficiently or is more cost effective than the private sector except for one thing -defense. Government is never concerned about what they are getting in exchange for the dough they fork out, productivity or efficiency. But defense is the one thing the private sector can't provide more efficiently and effectively. Which is probably why the defense of the country is the very first obligation of the federal government in the Constitution, and the very first obligation listed for the Presidency.

I don't understand some people who think government is this magic, all-wise, all-knowing entity that makes them believe that if any kind of problem exists, regardless of what that problem is, why then GOVERNMENT is the answer! It is rarely the answer and even more rarely the best answer. One only needs to study history to quickly realize how much government screws up nearly everything it touches. And that is because it involves PEOPLE in a system that has made it nearly impossible to fire the incompetent combined with the fact government never has goals of cost-effectiveness, productivity and efficiency -and you get people who screw up one thing after another - whether by mistake, through corruption, incompetency or because they just felt like screwing things up.

You want to see how quickly government can screw something up far worse than the private sector? Turn over healthcare to it. Why on earth anyone thinks government can provide healthcare more efficiently, more effectively and less expensively is beyond me. It just isn't government's expertise, never will be since efficiency and productivity are never the goals of government - and it will never be "free". Anyone ever bother to check to see whether the general health of the population has improved since the UK went with national healthcare? Because the report from the International Medical Outcomes is pretty bad for the UK. But at least the Brits get to fork over more than twice as much in taxes to pay for it than they would have voluntarily spent on it themselves if, instead of turning that money over to government, they had to pay it straight to the healthcare facility. But since government filters that money -less than half that amount Brits are taxed for healthcare actually goes towards their healthcare system. What a bargain for the buck, huh?

And what did they get in return for that? Instead of the average 8 week length for a doctor's appointment, they get to wait an average of 18-20 months instead. What they got in return is one of the highest premature mortality rates of western countries -people die earlier than they used to. They got in return -a survival rate for prostate cancer that is comparable to Eastern European countries, the lowest survival rate of lung cancer in Europe, the lowest survival rate for colorectal cancer among all western nations and lower than most Eastern European countries, the highest mortality rate from breast cancer in all Europe that is still rising, (the US has one of the lowest of all countries and its still dropping), a SIGNIFICANTLY higher fatality rate for strokes -about twice the rate as other western nations, one of the lowest rates of doctors and specialists per capita of all western nations. The lowest rate of people in Europe receiving curative treatments for several different kinds of cancer -meaning that even when people have cancers that would be cured with treatment, they just let 'em kick the bucket instead. And best of all -it appears the UK is rationing its healthcare on the basis of age -discriminating against the elderly in providing healthcare.

One of the conclusions of the International Medical Outcomes report is that in comparison to nations of comparable wealth, the UK performs poorly in healthcare and is THE worst performing among western nations. But hey -its FREE, right? What a bargain -oh, except for that high tax burden to pay for that lousy system of course.

If you want to provide a security net for those with no health insurance who do not qualify for Medicaid and can't afford to buy insurance, and for those who would be financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness -it really is possible to specifically take care of such people without penalizing every single man, woman and child in the country who will pay not just for those people with loads more of their own money, but will sacrifice their OWN health, lose more years of their OWN life and just end up with a lousy healthcare system for everyone than the one they were bitching about in the first place.

Government is just OTHER PEOPLE -and those strangers don't possess any more intelligence, education or skills than the average person. I wouldn't dream of walking up to a stranger and say "solve all my problems and I'll do it the way YOU think is in my best interests". So why would I do it to another stranger just because they got hired by government instead of hired by some company or business? That suddenly gives them greater insight to my best interests? LOL There is no one's judgment about what is in my own best interest I trust over my own, especially not the government's. And I sure wouldn't trust it with my health.

 

[Diuretic]

Er, attach this quote mentally to my last post.

Consider it done

 

[Diuretic]

Fraz - who built the Titanic? Who sailed it into an iceberg? Clue - it wasn't the Royal Navy.

Just my way of saying you claim that "Government rarely does anything more efficiently or is more cost effective than the private sector except for one thing -defense" is, to put it mildly, a gross exaggeration and probably unprovable. Such hyperbole should not be allowed to be applauded by the peanut gallery without at least some opposition.

 

[Shogun]

Government rarely does anything more efficiently or is more cost effective than the private sector except for one thing -defense. Government is never concerned about what they are getting in exchange for the dough they fork out, productivity or efficiency. But defense is the one thing the private sector can't provide more efficiently and effectively. Which is probably why the defense of the country is the very first obligation of the federal government in the Constitution, and the very first obligation listed for the Presidency.

I don't understand some people who think government is this magic, all-wise, all-knowing entity that makes them believe that if any kind of problem exists, regardless of what that problem is, why then GOVERNMENT is the answer! It is rarely the answer and even more rarely the best answer. One only needs to study history to quickly realize how much government screws up nearly everything it touches. And that is because it involves PEOPLE in a system that has made it nearly impossible to fire the incompetent combined with the fact government never has goals of cost-effectiveness, productivity and efficiency -and you get people who screw up one thing after another - whether by mistake, through corruption, incompetency or because they just felt like screwing things up.

You want to see how quickly government can screw something up far worse than the private sector? Turn over healthcare to it. Why on earth anyone thinks government can provide healthcare more efficiently, more effectively and less expensively is beyond me. It just isn't government's expertise, never will be since efficiency and productivity are never the goals of government - and it will never be "free". Anyone ever bother to check to see whether the general health of the population has improved since the UK went with national healthcare? Because the report from the International Medical Outcomes is pretty bad for the UK. But at least the Brits get to fork over more than twice as much in taxes to pay for it than they would have voluntarily spent on it themselves if, instead of turning that money over to government, they had to pay it straight to the healthcare facility. But since government filters that money -less than half that amount Brits are taxed for healthcare actually goes towards their healthcare system. What a bargain for the buck, huh?

And what did they get in return for that? Instead of the average 8 week length for a doctor's appointment, they get to wait an average of 18-20 months instead. What they got in return is one of the highest premature mortality rates of western countries -people die earlier than they used to. They got in return -a survival rate for prostate cancer that is comparable to Eastern European countries, the lowest survival rate of lung cancer in Europe, the lowest survival rate for colorectal cancer among all western nations and lower than most Eastern European countries, the highest mortality rate from breast cancer in all Europe that is still rising, (the US has one of the lowest of all countries and its still dropping), a SIGNIFICANTLY higher fatality rate for strokes -about twice the rate as other western nations, one of the lowest rates of doctors and specialists per capita of all western nations. The lowest rate of people in Europe receiving curative treatments for several different kinds of cancer -meaning that even when people have cancers that would be cured with treatment, they just let 'em kick the bucket instead. And best of all -it appears the UK is rationing its healthcare on the basis of age -discriminating against the elderly in providing healthcare.

One of the conclusions of the International Medical Outcomes report is that in comparison to nations of comparable wealth, the UK performs poorly in healthcare and is THE worst performing among western nations. But hey -its FREE, right? What a bargain -oh, except for that high tax burden to pay for that lousy system of course.

If you want to provide a security net for those with no health insurance who do not qualify for Medicaid and can't afford to buy insurance, and for those who would be financially destroyed by a catastrophic illness -it really is possible to specifically take care of such people without penalizing every single man, woman and child in the country who will pay not just for those people with loads more of their own money, but will sacrifice their OWN health, lose more years of their OWN life and just end up with a lousy healthcare system for everyone than the one they were bitching about in the first place.

Government is just OTHER PEOPLE -and those strangers don't possess any more intelligence, education or skills than the average person. I wouldn't dream of walking up to a stranger and say "solve all my problems and I'll do it the way YOU think is in my best interests". So why would I do it to another stranger just because they got hired by government instead of hired by some company or business? That suddenly gives them greater insight to my best interests? LOL There is no one's judgment about what is in my own best interest I trust over my own, especially not the government's. And I sure wouldn't trust it with my health.

I don't care about your opinion enough to read all of that. Suffice it to say, however, once you start picking and choosing what exceptions YOU THINK are immune from criticism then don't act shocked when the rest of us do the same. In this case, yes HEALTHCARE. Don't like it? YOu can always trade your US citizenship to someone who will enjoy UHC and trek yourself into the wilderness of a third world country to spread the good word of jebus.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...or at least his teachings seem to be considerably more consistent with socialist ideology than capitalist ideology.

Jesus supported private charity, not the welfare state.
The welfare state isn't charity as charity, to mean anything, must be voluntary.

 

[Ravi]

The welfare state isn't charity as charity, to mean anything, must be voluntary.

Why?

 

[Shogun]

Jesus supported private charity, not the welfare state.
The welfare state isn't charity as charity, to mean anything, must be voluntary.

show me where jebus differentiated between private and welfare charity.

I'm not interested in "prove me wrong first or Im not gonna answer your question" shennanigans. What verse, exactly, did jebus suggest what you have claimed to be true?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The welfare state isn't charity as charity, to mean anything, must be voluntary.
Why?

Christian Charity is based on the idea of giving to people voluntarily. The welfare state -forces- you to give to people, regardless if you want to or not.

That is, you aren't "doing a good deed" if you're being forced to do it.

 

[Ravi]

No, I meant your bit about it meaning something. Why is it more meaningful? Why does it matter? Do you really think God cares how helping others is accomplished?

 

[Shogun]

show me where jebus differentiated between private and welfare charity.

I'm not interested in "prove me wrong first or Im not gonna answer your question" shennanigans. What verse, exactly, did jebus suggest what you have claimed to be true?

*cough cough*

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I meant your bit about it meaning something. Why is it more meaningful?

Being forced to give vs giving voluntarily?
That should be obvious.

Why does it matter? Do you really think God cares how helping others is accomplished?

Well...if the only reason you giove to the poor is because you are forced to, you arent exactly doing it out of the kindness of your heart and/or because you think its the right thing to do.
Again, the difference here should be obvious.

 

[Ravi]

No, it isn't to me. Please explain.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it isn't to me. Please explain.

If you dont see the obvious difference, then you don't undertsand what Christian Charity is.

Hint: if you do it only because you are forced to, you aren't doing it.

 

[Shogun]

*cough cough*

gosh.. I wonder why you won't slap down verses that suggest what you've claimed to be true!

 

[Shogun]

If you dont see the obvious difference, then you don't undertsand what Christian Charity is.

Hint: if you do it only because you are forced to, you aren't doing it.

WEAK.

Ravir's gotcha in a headlock, dude.

 

[Ravi]

Shooter: Of course you are. If you want to help the poor and unfortunate, the best way to do it is to make it mandatory. Even if it goes against your grain. IMO, Jesus would rather the poor were helped and not care how it was accomplished.

btw, what did he ever say to make you think that way?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shooter: Of course you are. If you want to help the poor and unfortunate, the best way to do it is to make it mandatory

And that's what you don't get.
Jesus wasn't about -forcing- anyone to do anything. He was all about choosing to do what was right -- that is, you have to do it out of your own free will.
What makes you believe that Jesus would have forced people to be charitable?

Even if it goes against your grain. IMO, Jesus would rather the poor were helped and not care how it was accomplished.

Then you dont understand Christianity at all -- Christianity doesn't follow the idea that "the ends justify the means".
What makes you believe that Jesus would have charity be anything other than voluntary?