The rediculousness of assumption that founders were not Christian

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps
Ajwps. You didn't understand what dillo was saying. I did. He's confirmed it. And you act like there's still doubt. Just accept it. You were wrong.

Actually you are right that you both of you are WRONG... Live with it....

No. the point is quite valid. Though the analogy is farsical. Is everyone guaranteed freedom from exposure to christianity in any way?

I know insurance companies have too much control. Insurance has gotten too expensive due to excessive litigation, and a class of liberal government supported lawyers who fight tort reform at every turn.

Actually litigation is not a reason that medical costs are out of control or expensive.

Of course it is. As always the protected lib professions stick together.

Health insurance companies do not care about the cost of malpractice insurance and the costs to hospitals and providers. The health insurance industry together colludes on deciding what treatments are allowed and how much are paid for them. Their motivation is profits for the CEOs and for the insurance company stockholders. Providing health care is of little or no concern to them. If an insurance company allows $50.00 for a doctor visit, the cost of that visit must include federal income tax, rent, electricity, water, employee salaries and a myriad of costs of materials and supplies. The net cost to the doctor can be closer to $75.00 for your visit but the insurance company does not allow the doctor to charge one more penny than the insurance cost adjuster wants to pay for that visit. Where does the extra $25.00 come from? It is out of the doctor's pocket so that you can have that health care visit. Why do you think so many doctors are getting out of this trap?

are you for tort reform and caps on damages for medical malpractice?

I'm for no reform or cap on REAL damages for medical negligence (not malpracitice) as insurance coverage protecting doctors does not stop incompetent doctors from continuing on their merry way.


It is simply a profit machine for attorneys who get the lion share of any millions of dollar rewards and the injured ends up with much less than the insurance company payment.

When doctor medical societies takes licenses away from incompetent physicians, these doctors simply hire expensive lawyers who go to court and get them their license back.

and as far as the public display of religious stuff. It should be no problem, if it costs the taxpayers nothing. Please show damages that result from exposure to a nativity scene.

You are totally missing the point. It is not the cost to the public but to those public citizens who pay the bills for others who want to display their religious symbols on property paid for by all people. Not just Christians.

What's the difference between "the public" and " the public citizens who pay the bills for others who want to disply their religious symbols on property paid for by all people".
If they lease it out, it's a profit center. And your initial argument was cost related. Now you need to show how exposure to a cross on public ground is harmful.

and about the quote stuff. Using bold to indicate quotations is not standard and annoying. but I know how doctors can never get off their pillar of specialness. I mean really, who are we to ask you to quote in a more legible fashion?

Sorry that bold print is irritating to you which indicates what the original poster says to differentiate their statement from the reply. So I have italicized the posters statements instead of making them in bold. Is this a violation of Jimmyc's rules?

No it's not. It's just that the board has a standard quoting mechanism that formats and indents the quotes in a more legible fashion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Do you want socialized medicine ajwps?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr

Do you want socialized medicine ajwps?

Well everything in BOLD makes it difficult to follow the replies. It seems easier on the reader to easily see the distinction with a difference between the poster and the responsder.


No I do not believe in socialized medicine as every country who has adopted the concept that only government officials knows what level of health care is approved for ordinary men and women is wrong and when representative government holds the purse strings, then only they themselves get the best of healthcare and everyone else gets what they deem necessary. They decide who lives and who dies, who suffers with illness and who gets relief. This is not a function of mankind. Socialized medicine in every country that uses this method of delivery is actually a two tiered system whereby those who are rich and can afford health care get it and those who cannot afford health care get the left overs and die.


IMHO the best form of health care delivery is for everyone to save a little out of their own salaries and have the ability to place it into a medical savings account which is not taxed. Thereby, everybody can decide what kind of health care they get and who they wish to deliver it to them as their own choice. When and if this would occur, then the cost of health care would go precipitously down as the cost of dealing with the insurance industry is most of the cost of providing care and makes it expensive for the premium payer and a loss for those providing the care.

The poor or those who cannot afford to save from a salary are still provided health care but must sit in a county facility and wait for some hours before they can get a similar level of health care as everyone with money.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by ajwps


IMHO the best form of health care delivery is for everyone to save a little out of their own salaries and have the ability to place it into a medical savings account which is not taxed. Thereby, everybody can decide what kind of health care they get and who they wish to deliver it to them as their own choice. When and if this would occur, then the cost of health care would go precipitously down as the cost of dealing with the insurance industry is most of the cost of providing care and makes it expensive for the premium payer and a loss for those providing the care.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Hobbit]

THe one that exists. Government creates the scarcity of doctors by forcing them to go to lots of extra school. And the elite docors of old were happy to have competition from those unable to afford education squashed. Most doctors specialize and end using only small portions of all the classes they took. What do you think of the the new p.a. degree? And what is it's purpose? Why was it developed?

Ok, I'm adding to this. Even doctors who specialize need advanced knowledge of the entire body. The human body is a complex system in which all parts effect each other. Much like small discrepencies in the weather in Japan can eventually and drastically effect the weather in the United States. Why do you think a heart attack causes pain in the left arm, or that dehydration causes headaches. I wouldn't ever want a doctor working on me who didn't know about the WHOLE body.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Hobbit

Hobbit this was my response to the post you mentioned.

THe one that exists. Government creates the scarcity of doctors by forcing them to go to lots of extra school. And the elite docors of old were happy to have competition from those unable to afford education squashed. Most doctors specialize and end using only small portions of all the classes they took. What do you think of the the new p.a. degree? And what is it's purpose? Why was it developed?

So you want to be treated by poorly trained or substandard cheaply trained healthcare doctors who are only taught to treat one part of you instead of understanding all that profound effects of your normal physiology, anatomy and pathological combinations which allows for proper differential diagnosis'? What makes you think that doctors use only small portions of the classes they took? If you come to your doctor with a pain in your foot, your idea of doctor might miss that you have kidney disease (gouty arthritis), diabetes, heart disease or a tumor that has now metastisized to your foot. The physician assistant degree allows the doctor to concentrate on complex pathological disease while the P.A. takes a verbal history, blood pressure, heart rate, height, weight and put Iodine on scrapes.

Would you want a PA to remove your gallbladder or write you an rx for a functional adenoma of the adrenal medulla (Pheochromacytoma)? Why not just go to a PA with a massive heart attack. It is of course cheaper for the insurance company.

 

[NewGuy]

How come all of you other guys (Dillo, RWA, etc...) don't dispute the text if you disagree with the opinion?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

How come all of you other guys (Dillo, RWA, etc...) don't dispute the text if you disagree with the opinion?

What post and opinion are you referring to? You have me confused as you have not listed the header for the question you wish a reply.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
How come all of you other guys (Dillo, RWA, etc...) don't dispute the text if you disagree with the opinion?

What post and opinion are you referring to? You have me confused as you have not listed the header for the question you wish a reply.

What thread do you think you are in?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

What thread do you think you are in?

Sorry for your benefit the new thread is at:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8449

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
Sorry for your benefit the new thread is at:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8449

Don't tell me how to read the title of my own thread.

Follow the link to your own discussion.

This thread has nothing to do with what your link discusses.

My question and issue still stands.

If you refuse to acknowledge the topic, then don't post. I don't care. There is no need to derail it.

My point with documentation still stands proven.

I was asking why all the rest who disagreed could not prove so regarding the text its self.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
How come all of you other guys (Dillo, RWA, etc...) don't dispute the text if you disagree with the opinion?

Those other texts, while interesting, are not the constitution. In the constitution they put the establishent clause. If they'd wanted to make it specifiically a Christian nation, they'd have put in THE CONSTITUTION. Remember that? The one your always going on and on about?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Those other texts, while interesting, are not the constitution. In the constitution they put the establishent clause. If they'd wanted to make it specifiically a Christian nation, they'd have put in THE CONSTITUTION. Remember that? The one your always going on and on about?

Can you quote that "clause" and logically explain how you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy


Can you quote that "clause" and logically explain how you arrive at that conclusion?

Post your point of disagreement. I'm not here to receive essay assignments from you. I'll not play your insipid games.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Post your point of disagreement. I'm not here to receive essay assignments from you. I'll not play your insipid games.

I will take that as a "No....I just like to argue without proof."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I will take that as a "No....I just like to argue without proof."

I need to prove the constitution is the constitution? I need to prove the establishment clause exists?

I think not.

All the other historical documents you cite are just fine and dandy, but they're not our constitution. If the founders had wanted us to go to all those other sources to divine their intentions, why did they even bother with the consitution? I think we should just go by what is in that ONE Document, as was intended. There is no note in the constitution that says "Please refer to a laundry list of other documents to figure out what we really meant".

Sorry.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I need to prove the constitution is the constitution? I need to prove the establishment clause exists?

I think not.

All the other historical documents you cite are just fine and dandy, but they're not our constitution. If the founders had wanted us to go to all those other sources to divine their intentions, why did they even bother with the consitution? I think we should just go by what is in that ONE Document, as was intended. There is no note in the constitution that says "Please refer to a laundry list of other documents to figure out what we really meant".

Sorry.

Agreed.

Then you can quote the "clause" and logically prove your point.

We come full circle. You guys wanted to go back further in questioning intent.

I am laughing at you RWA.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Agreed.

Then you can quote the "clause" and logically prove your point.

We come full circle. You guys wanted to go back further in questioning intent.

I am laughing at you RWA.

I'm not going to. I laugh at you as well. So I guess you're done pouting since your back on the board eh?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I'm not going to. I laugh at you as well. So I guess you're done pouting since your back on the board eh?

Unless other parties want to divulge information, I will not either.

Suffice it to say I was not pouting, but I am back.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Unless other parties want to divulge information, I will not either.

Suffice it to say I was not pouting, but I am back.

other parties? How coy and mysterious.