Thanks Logos. I promise not to let you down. Since it is the Christmas season it is only right and proper that I "open" (buy) each gift!
Well I think it would be a good hypothesis to say that blonde males would be very happy about the situation and demur any talk of doing away with it.
Of course, the fact that I may be able to take on such an endeavor without any major consequences obviously says nothing about whether or not I could successfully extend my program to include red-heads. It also doesn't tell you that my subsidizing of the blondes is a profitable action. Economic systems are complex, you see. A business can run for a long time with unprofitable sectors.
[quote]
And as for Denmark, my thought is simply that of course someone thinks socialism is great and "works fine". After all, lots of people think fascism is great and works fine too.
same polemics can be applied to capitalism.
Should be people be dying because they can't afford health care? I'm not sure, that gets into some complex issues (do people have an inalienable right for other people to take care of them)?
I haven't been implying anything in that regards. I do not believe that people have an inalienable right for other people to take care of them, though I still claim that this right is actually an advantage for the society as a whole. As an example I suffered from a bad pneumonia last year. Had I had to pay for the entire treatment, I would still be in debt today. I would have to focus on working a job instead of my studies, I wouldn't be able to buy the books I need (both for the curriculum, and those I use in apologetics(I study theology at a secular faculty, and therefore face the attacks of ungodly people who actually think themselves to be right on the matters of God (I know it sounds weird but thats unfortunately the circumstances))). The author of your articles didn't have any research on the qualitative consequences of the welfare-state on the education, but he has to consider the possibility of the student to dive deeper into his studies instead of worrying about getting through the day.
But see here and here for a counter-perspectively on its "greatness" for Denmark.
I never claimed for Denmark to be the perfect example of socialism, but simple responded to a claim regarding ONE possible appliance of socialism, which I simply found wrong.
The author of these articles tries to make a sociological analysis of the danish system, which is a great thing to do, but there are some outstanding flaws in his reasoning. First of all his conclusion is based on some very limited socioeconomic figures and second, he seems to disregard completely that the welfare-system actually haven't changed remarkably in the timeframe of which the entire article is based upon. He seems to set the peek of the system's success in 1970, but doesn't count at all the necessary facts that the grounds of sociological analysis changed drastically after the 60' with complete change of values(which can't be traced to the political system at that time, but rather to a larger international movement), the participation in the European Union and others. EU alone has made a remarkable change, which in fact has degraded the overall quality of the danish system with decrees coming from the european parliament overruling national decisions.
that being said, I am a very vocal speaker for change in Denmark. Especially against the 'pseudo-socialistic' equality-movements (and they exist in the US as well as in Denmark, so you know who they are) and many other things.
This being written late at night and in a haste, please see through the obvious stupid things i have written and try to see what I want to say [:O]
Yours in Christ (and in disagreement)
Christian Sofussen
the danish system
This being written late at night and in a haste, please see through the obvious stupid things i have written and try to see what I want to say
Oh boy, Christian you really left yourself open with that set-up. After removing all the obvious stupid things you wrote, the post is blank! [;)]
If all you kids want a FREE stuff go here:
We could argue forever regarding whether socialized health care would or would not result in better health care (I believe it would NOT), but one thing that is quite clear and without possibility of dispute is that the enactment of such is destructive of the US Constitutional government. I think that outweighs any other argument. The US has regulations regarding the requirement that anyone who needs health care must receive it. Additionally, there are many generous people in the country who are quite willing to help someone in need outside of any government regulation. Whatever you do in Denmark or Britain or Australia or Canada is not pertinent to our situation other than to note that many problems result from the intrusion of socialism. I personally would rather die than be the instrument to further the movement toward tyranny which would result from a failure to observe the requirements of our Constitution.
Thanks for the response, Christian. For my final, truly, remarks see here.
[O]
30 2 more minutes.........................................................................................[|-)]
Will Logos 5.0 have a wake-up call feature?
You could always shift to Australia...... I get the Logos blog in the early evening every day. It's wonderfully timed...
Will Logos 5.0 have a wake-up call feature? You could always shift to Australia...... I get the Logos blog in the early evening every day. It's wonderfully timed...
Isn't your December the warm time of the year? I'm packing my suitcase. Do you have a spare room? [ap]
Isn't your December the warm time of the year?
Warm doesn't begin to describe it. I'm in the tropics, around 90degrees each day and humid....
Today it was 74'F in Oklahoma City. Two days ago it was 13'F.
Well, gotta sleep some. I already have WBC so my wife is going to laugh at me in a few hours. (Unless I don't tell her.)
Yes, Finally! I already have WBC too. Now I don't have to look at it in sorrow wishing I could take more money from my kid's future to get it. [;)]
LOL... And a merry christmas to you too
Forgot to quote.
This being written late at night and in a haste, please see through the obvious stupid things i have written and try to see what I want to say Oh boy, Christian you really left yourself open with that set-up. After removing all the obvious stupid things you wrote, the post is blank! If all you kids want a FREE stuff go here:
Oh boy, Christian you really left yourself open with that set-up. After removing all the obvious stupid things you wrote, the post is blank!
Love you too
Thanks. I commented on your blog. tried to comment in a way that doesn't require followup.
I love you too, Brother.
And if you ever visit Oklahoma City, I will give you a Starbucks coffee for FREE so you don't get homesick.[C]
Yes, Finally! I already have WBC too. Now I don't have to look at it in sorrow wishing I could take more money from my kid's future to get it.
You can't do that anyway. Obama and the Democrats have beat you to it.
Resultwise, look at Britain, France, Canada -- no one is happy with their system. They all come here because they get better care and get it when they need it.
That's a reliable source. Waiting lists/times in the UK are at their lowest since 1997.
That's a reliable source.
Waiting lists/times in the UK are at their lowest since 1997.
Yes, and British newspapers are renowned for never beating up a story.... Was it the Sun or the Mirror?
Damian well said! All i would say is, watching Fox news is not a good source of info about issues in the States. George just does not understand how the media works in the UK - Rupert Murdoch Newsgroup need i say anymore!
Ted.
Sorry...can't resist. Is that because they've already killed off all the sick people?
Ha Philip, let's say everything American is great!
I shall refuse to disagree with my American friends, i just don't want another invasion. Or better put get a refund! You get my point.[:P]
( My attempt at a joke Philip)[:D]
Edit: The quote about "Waiting lists/times in the UK are at their lowest since 1997" are Damian's not mine.
I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait. I'll guarantee that more die in the US due to lack of medical insurance than die due to waiting lists caused by universal health coverage in the many countries of the Western world which offer it. Wrong! No one dies for lack of medical insurance. That is a lie propagated by the looney lefties. If anyone dies because they don't get medical care, it is because they don't seek it. If someone presents to an emergency room (or doctor's office) in need of care, they MUST be cared for regardless of insurance, lack thereof or funds to pay. That's the law.
I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait. I'll guarantee that more die in the US due to lack of medical insurance than die due to waiting lists caused by universal health coverage in the many countries of the Western world which offer it.
I'm telling you that they come here or some of them die because of the wait.
I'll guarantee that more die in the US due to lack of medical insurance than die due to waiting lists caused by universal health coverage in the many countries of the Western world which offer it.
Wrong! No one dies for lack of medical insurance. That is a lie propagated by the looney lefties. If anyone dies because they don't get medical care, it is because they don't seek it. If someone presents to an emergency room (or doctor's office) in need of care, they MUST be cared for regardless of insurance, lack thereof or funds to pay. That's the law.
People do die for lack of medical insurance. I have friends who work at a free clinic in Chicago who routinely examine people who are then found to have cancer. They then point these same people who don't have medical insurance to Cook County hospital in Chicago. The wait to have major surgery for cancer can be months long (6 months). During the waiting period, more than a few of these people die. There is a difference between going to an emergency room and having surgery to stop the spread of a person's cancer. An uninsured person will be treated at an emergency room, but an uninsured person who has cancer could die.
Today the Word Biblical Commentary set is on sale again for $399. I am seriously tempted to get it, but I think I am going to have to wait. This is a great deal!
More people die because they have medical insurance than those who die because they don't have medical insurance.
but sin has them all beat.
Great minds think alike Phillip. I replied before I read your comment :-)
"More people die without hearing the Gospel than I care to think about. "
Amen brother..
and why I can't I quot anyone??
I don't know...did you hit "quick reply" instead of the reply button?
People do die for lack of medical insurance. I have friends who work at a free clinic in Chicago who routinely examine people who are then found to have cancer. They then point these same people who don't have medical insurance to Cook County hospital in Chicago. The wait to have major surgery for cancer can be months long (6 months). During the waiting period, more than a few of these people die. There is a difference between going to an emergency room and having surgery to stop the spread of a person's cancer. An uninsured person will be treated at an emergency room, but an uninsured person who has cancer could die. More people die because they have medical insurance than those who die because they don't have medical insurance.
How does that work? How does having insurance actual end up killing people that otherwise wouldn't have died without medical insurance?
But the original point I made was that people do die because they don't have medical insurance. These people have treatable forms of cancer that could be operated on if they could get in for surgery in a timely manner, at least as timely as someone who has insurance.
And socialized medicine is not free healthcare.
We really need a good special tomorrow to recapture this thread.
The WBC 59 is a great special!
People do die for lack of medical insurance. I have friends who work at a free clinic in Chicago who routinely examine people who are then found to have cancer. They then point these same people who don't have medical insurance to Cook County hospital in Chicago. The wait to have major surgery for cancer can be months long (6 months). During the waiting period, more than a few of these people die. There is a difference between going to an emergency room and having surgery to stop the spread of a person's cancer. An uninsured person will be treated at an emergency room, but an uninsured person who has cancer could die. More people die because they have medical insurance than those who die because they don't have medical insurance. How does that work? How does having insurance actual end up killing people that otherwise wouldn't have died without medical insurance? But the original point I made was that people do die because they don't have medical insurance. These people have treatable forms of cancer that could be operated on if they could get in for surgery in a timely manner, at least as timely as someone who has insurance. And socialized medicine is not free healthcare.
The advocates of socialized medicine clain that when a person does not have insurance dies he dies because he didn't have insurance. Since there are more people who DO have insurance and therefore more people who do have insurance who die ("All men are mortal"), they must die because they DO HAVE insurance. Therefore more people die because they have insurance than die because they don't have insurance -- same logic.
Yeah, but I already sold my firstborn son for that.
So true, so true; especially on the airwaves in the US.
That is poor logic. Yes more people die with insurance, but more people do not die "because" or "as a result of" having insurance compared to without it.
Neither do more people die because they don't have insurance so quit lying about it.
That is poor logic. Yes more people die with insurance, but more people do not die "because" or "as a result of" having insurance compared to without it. Neither do more people die because they don't have insurance so quit lying about it.
I'm not lying. You said no one at all dies because of lack of health insurance. I know first hand that there are people who have cancer and do not have access to timely surgery and and a result die. If these same people would have had health insurance, they wouldn't have. I'm not comparing how many people die, but stating the fact that some people die only because they don't have private health insurance.
That is poor logic. Yes more people die with insurance, but more people do not die "because" or "as a result of" having insurance compared to without it. Neither do more people die because they don't have insurance so quit lying about it. I'm not lying. You said no one at all dies because of lack of health insurance. I know first hand that there are people who have cancer and do not have access to timely surgery and and a result die. If these same people would have had health insurance, they wouldn't have. I'm not comparing how many people die, but stating the fact that some people die only because they don't have private health insurance.
People who do not have insurance die for many reasons (as do those who have insurance): I wouldn't suppose that sleeping in a cardboard box in sub-zero temperature is very conducive to maintaining good health nor is sticking a needle in your arm or using some of the designer drugs or engaging in certain risky behavior. Most who have insurance are the productive members of society who by and large do not engage in such behavior. Those who choose to engage in risky behavior or who are forced into poverty situations do not die because they lack insurance but because of their abberant behavior. Those who claim that they die because they lack health insurance are skewing the statistics to support their desire to impose socialized medicine upon a country which does not want socialized medicine. I would therefore say that to claim that they die because they do not have insurance is not the truth and must therefore be a lie.
You keep missing the point. You said "no one dies because they don't have health insurance." I know for a fact that plenty of people fall directly into this category for no fault of their own. We aren't talking about people who are homeless living in boxes that are addicted to crack cocaine and left good jobs with health insurance because they like to get high. We are talking about people who are at or below the poverty line at no fault of their own who have cancer. If they had private health insurance, they would still be living. I am not advocating socialized medicine. I am in fact advocating private health insurance because the government/medicade/socialized health care obviously let them down because they had to wait months for surgery.You automatically assume that if a person does not have health insurance, it is their own fault. That is far from being true. Poverty can be self-imposed, but it certainly doesn't have to be.
The fact is that America spends far too much on healthcare per person. This is helping to drain the economy. We want the most technologically advanced medicine, but don't want to pay for the expense of it. Health technology is far outpacing growth in wages and that is why health insurance rates are climbing 10-30% a year. But if you want the best healthcare and the newest medical treatments, you are going to pay for it. And we are. We can't have it both ways. At least not for a while.
Since Jeremy and George decided to turn this into a healthcare debate, and since we cannot block their never-ending debate, I started a new thread for the discussion everyone else cares about.. Logos special offers
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/7131/55986.aspx#55986
If you want to decrease the cost of healthcare then there should be caps on the damages that can be claimed in tort cases. There have been quite a number of rediculously large awards given through suits. Quite frequently there is a settlement which probably should not have been made which we never hear about. Most of what we hear about are the large class-action suits which grant awards far in excess of anything that is reasonable. This drives up the cost of insurance. Doctors pay enourmous amounts for malpractice insurance which I'm sure you can appreciate must be covered by raising the charges. Then there needs to be the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. This would increase the number of companies competing for business which always has a positive effect upon costs. There should be a greater provision for medical health savings plans. These could be used to cover the more normal events which might occur. For the really high ticket items a person should be able to buy a catastrophic plan which would be used to only cover those items which would drain one's budget. None of this involves socialized medicine, and none of it is included in the 2,000 + page monstrosity now before the Senate.
YAWN....how did this thread degenerate into talking politics when it began on such a high note; viz, talking Logos!?
It's all YOUR fault - you started it!!! [:P]
And, I am trying to finish it!!
It's all YOUR fault - you started it!!!
Seriously, the moment I saw Randy's post on day 1 I knew it was going to end this way.
I understand that a lot of people hate this topic, but it's something Americans are faced with right now and rather than going into a closet and making their decision it is better to actually discuss these issues (although maybe not here or now) and bounce their ideas off of other minds and opposing views. When people sit in their own circle and talk to their own company they become neurotic. Interacting with a broader community and persons that have a counter perspective is, I think, a good way to keep your head out of the clouds. It's also a good way to put your ideas to the test and see how well they hold up.
And since the relevant conversation has been moved to a different thread... I just couldn't resist two quick questions. [Edit: on second thought, I better not...]
what kind of health insurance did the apostles have?? How about the churches of rome, ephesus and other early churches??
just curious..[:P]
"No developed system of welfare existed in first-century Rome, save for the corn dole and some disaster relief after earthquakes or famines. The Jewish world had more developed systems for distributing food or money to the poor on a daily or weekly basis, but many people still 'fell through the cracks.'"
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels : An Introduction and Survey (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997). 62.
(See, Logos can even help you in your health-care debate. Now if they would just add "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt and "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowel we could avoid most of these arguments to begin with...)
lol.. see Logos is a good thing!!!
Logos is a great thing. It would be even greater if it expanded its selection of books into areas that are more useful to Christian apologists. The Logos program lends itself very well to the way apologists need to study and find things, but currently Logos doesn't have an overall great selection of resources here. To do this it would need to add more books on philosophy of religion and plain old philosophy, in all of its fields (which includes political/economic theory (like how about History of Political Philosophy by Strauss and Cropsy?)).
