• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Winding the Wicking of Discovery

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I'm saying enough is enough with government control. They don't need any more.
So you would rather pay $800 per month to a corporation that makes heath care decisions from a profit motive, rather than pay $300 per month to the federal government that makes health care decisions from a public health motive?

And what do you tell people who can't afford the premiums?

I don't think you're paying attention.
What am I getting wrong?
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
So you would rather pay $800 per month to a corporation that makes heath care decisions from a profit motive, rather than pay $300 per month to the federal government that makes health care decisions from a public health motive?
Then that needs to be addressed. I'd like to see the profit margins of those agencies to compare and contrast.
What am I getting wrong?
Going off topic.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Then that needs to be addressed. I'd like to see the profit margins of those agencies to compare and contrast.
But you're still willing to pay more to a for-profit company, than to pay less to a federal program, correct?

Going off topic.
It's entirely on-topic. As we've seen, your primary concern here stems from your views on "government control" and taxes being "theft", rather than from issues related to effectiveness or practicality of any specific proposal.

IOW, no matter what publicly funded health care plan is proposed you will oppose it simply because it is publicly funded and government run.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
But you're still willing to pay more to a for-profit company, than to pay less to a federal program, correct?
That's your theory of how it will work and I have mine, that is clear.
It's entirely on-topic. As we've seen, your primary concern here stems from your views on "government control" and taxes being "theft", rather than from issues related to effectiveness or practicality of any specific proposal.

IOW, no matter what publicly funded health care plan is proposed you will oppose it simply because it is publicly funded and government run.
Those assumptions you are making are taken things out of context, which goes off topic.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
That's your theory of how it will work and I have mine, that is clear.
Very much so.

Those assumptions you are making are taken things out of context, which goes off topic.
"Let's not neglect the fact that the rich are covering the poor."

"You have more faith in legalized theft then I do."

"government has a proven record of screwing things up"

"I'm saying enough is enough with government control. They don't need any more."

All of those statements from you were made in the course of a discussion of a publicly funded health care program. If you meant them in some other context, please explain.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
Very much so.


"Let's not neglect the fact that the rich are covering the poor."

"You have more faith in legalized theft then I do."

"government has a proven record of screwing things up"

"I'm saying enough is enough with government control. They don't need any more."

All of those statements from you were made in the course of a discussion of a publicly funded health care program. If you meant them in some other context, please explain.
Now your spinning things, from comparing answering a perspective, to your limited assumptions.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
***Mod: Merging posts from duplicate thread***
sun rise comments OP said:
There are many different forms of socialism including "market socialism" as opposed to state ownership of the means of production. There is even a branch called libertarian socialism. So the first question is what, if anything, can be said about the word socialism itself. That wikipedia article I referenced does not help:

...Different self-described socialists have used the term "socialism" to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. ... There have been numerous political movements which called themselves "socialist" under some definition of the term—some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

But taking Democratic Socialism broadly, it explicitly is first about democracy rather than the "dictatorship of the proletariat". And it explicitly has a role for the market rather than a planned economy. Other features are income redistribution, government helping those in need and focus on people who work for a living rather than capitalists.

Shadow Link OP said:
socialism's lack of belief that not all suffering is evil?

sun rise quotes OP said:
I need to turn that from a double negative into the question to an assertion that "socialism believes suffering is evil". Christian socialists would or should follow the Bible's lead in stating that it is the duty of Christians to help those who are suffering and in need. Following that, I'd state that the fundamental question is what the role of government should be in helping those in need.

As someone who is sympathetic to the basic concept of Democratic Socialism, I hearken to the Declaration of Independence's assertion that everyone is created equal with the right to pursue happiness. If the super-wealthy controls so much power in the form of money that equality is by-and-large impossible, I would assert that government needs to rectify that and ensure that everyone has equal opportunity to pursue happiness. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome.
 
Top