(V): "And end up bankrupt? But hang on.. why did people who helped out during the 9/11 terrorist attack have to travel to Cuba to get the help they needed?"

Free. I know many people that didn't have to pay a dime because they didn't have the money. But they still got the treatment.


"But we end up again here.. you do pay for it via taxes. Unless you want to say you are defrauding the government by not paying them."

You clearly don't know the law. YOu are REQUIRED to purchase your own insurance. If you can't afford it, you will go on the Govt plan. People will be required to buy insurance - that's the problem. If you don't, you pay a penalty (called a tax by Obama and then NOT a tax and then a tax again). lol


".. Samaritan up.. isn't that what Jesus said!!"

You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state.

Artful Dodger: One case..

"Nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies in the US are directly caused by medical bills."

More than one, unless you cannot count.

"I know many people that didn't have to pay a dime because they didn't have the money. But they still got the treatment."

Millions of people here in the UK get that.. Unless, they have a private insurance scheme. Then they have to declare that to the NHS GP so they can bill them.

"YOu are REQUIRED to purchase your own insurance. If you can't afford it, you will go on the Govt plan. People will be required to buy insurance - that's the problem."

So the drain on federal income goes down. Here in the UK anyone earning over £50k is being told they will get less child benefit, over £60K they will lose it totally. It'll save around £700 million a year.

"Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state."

OK..... Now, honestly.. Can you see an atheist Republican candidate who is pro gay marriage and pro choice getting nominated? Which publication is used as a justification for being against gay marriage and abortion.... even though people using said publication are often for the use of the likes of Cluster Bombs.

BE REAL... there is no real separation. It is a BIG lie.

Artful Dodger:

"You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state."

If there is a separation of church and state, then why are some politicians selling their perceived Chistian values as potential government policy? To be fair, it happens on both Repuiblican and Democrat Candiadates. In the United States it is impossible for a candidate to win an election if he does not profess himself/herself to be a Christian.

From George W. Bush: "We are in a crusade against the axis of evil." George W. Bush used his return to Christianity as a big selling point in his political campaigns. Obama repeated so many times that he was a Christian until his religious associations got him into some minor trouble.

I think a more accurate description is that we have a separation of "Clergy and the State" rather than "Religion and the State"

Jesus never said that the State should be involved in .taking care of the people, but then in Jesus' time such a concept did not even exist. The idea that the state should take care of the people is a product of the early 20th century. As such it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Having said that, the question is: "Is there a contradiction between the state taking care of people and the values expounded by Jesus?" Jesus clearly believed in helping the poor, as his miracles attest. A person could easily interpret the role of the state as an extension of those values.

Ultimately it comes to selfishness and individualism. The state taking care of people is a form of collective action that requires those who pay taxes to put aside some selfishness and accept that the state has a role in helping the poor. It is part of the modern social contract. We surrender the power to the decide to the state. The reason why we can't agree on how is because each politician pretends to represent the values of his/her constituency. If the politician is selfish and individualistic, he/she will put forward his/her personal values as if they were those of everyone he/she represents.

Well, I think most people agree that everyone needs healthcare. The question then is "Should the state provide it or should the private sector provide it?"

If the state provides it, then the cost is deferred to tax payers. If the private sector provides it, then the cost is deferred to individual insurance buyers and the profit goes to all those companies involved in providing insurance and healthcare services. Either way, people have to pay for it no matter what. It is a matter of belief on whether tax dollars or personal wealth should determine the cost and quality of care.

Übergeek 바둑이: Many reasons.

Pandering

You can't completely divorce yourself from your convictions. Forcing your religion on others is one thing. Promoting certain principles (such as doing good) is not a bad thing.

Many "Christian" princples are followed by people like you. Obeying the government is a Christian principle. Being a good citizen is a Christian principle. So is honesty. And expecting others to be honest is a principle that we can agree is a good thing (certainly isn't a bad thing).

It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

"Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

Artful Dodger: I think you'll find that the idea of obeying your government is much, MUCH older than Christianity.

"Being a good citizen is a Christian principle. So is honesty."

Sorry, but so it is in most (except cults like Scientology) religions.

"Forcing your religion on others is one thing. "

Like with Gay Marriage rights and Abortion. How certain Christian bodies go about saying they can make gay people straight, and using their anti gay feelings to cloud laws such as Gays being in the US armed forces.

... Because the Bible says being Gay is wrong.. even though the context (rape, temple sex, etc) is different and therefore a false statement.

(V): didn't say it wasn't

Artful Dodger: there is talk that the "powers that be" are letting girls as young as 13 get the contraceptive pill from the chemist and not having to go to the Doc. for a script...that is in the UK....talk about encouraging promiscuousness (SP)

Bernice: And without parent permission. But if they need an asprin at school, they need a written permission slip and a not from the doc. AND the parents need to supply the meds.

Need a condom? Not a problem. Here, take two!

Liberals for ya.!

Artful Dodger:

> Need a condom? Not a problem. Here, take two!

Here is a good question: Has the teaching of Christianity reduced the number of unintended pregnancies, transmission of STDs, or abortions?

The answer is that it has not. Neither have contraceptive devices.

The reason is that there is a lack of education in schools. Sex is seen as a "bad" thing to teach children. The general thinking is that if children learn about sex, they will become sexually active themselves.

In reality, becoming sexually active has nothing to do with sexual education, religious education, or contraceptive use. It has to do with human physiology.

If religious education and "abstinence" worked, Christianity would have suceeded in stamping out sex out of wedlock centuries ago. For 2000 years Chistianity has been preaching abstinence and sex only in the context of reproduction and marriage.

After 2000 years of thrying the results are: Good? So so? Bad?

If teaching Chirstianity worked automatically, there would be no Bristol Palins in this world.

If abstinence and religious education have failed for 2000 years, what should people do then? Keep repeating the same failed educational pattern for another 2000 years?

Übergeek 바둑이:

>

"Here is a
good question: Has the teaching of Christianity reduced the number of
unintended pregnancies, transmission of STDs, or abortions?"

That's not the question being discussed.  The question is about the role of contraception availability in reducing pregnancies and abortions.  It's clear that availability doesn't curb unwanted pregnancies.  Just deal with that fact on the face of it.  In fact, explain why it's ok to make contraceptives available when in fact pregnancies and abortions have gone UP over the long haul. 

The
reason is that there is a lack of education in schools. Sex is seen as
a "bad" thing to teach children. The general thinking is that if
children learn about sex, they will become sexually active themselves.

No.  Lack of education isn't the problem.  And it's not seen as "bad."  It seen as the respoonsibility of the parents.  What's wrong with that?

"In
reality, becoming sexually active has nothing to do with sexual
education, religious education, or contraceptive use. It has to do with
human physiology."

Not entirely true.  But we'll move on.

If religious education and "abstinence"
worked,.....

Am I making the argument that it does????  If so, where?  (here's a clue, I'm not---you're inferring it)
I never said Christianity worked automatically.   If someone has told you that, tell them AD says they are full of crap. ;)


I don't know the answer to this problem.  I think we have a breakdown in society and a multitude of factors are at play when it comes to sexual activity.  As there is nothing new under the sun, promiscuity has been around since the beginning.   Can it be fixed?  NO.  Can the problem be lessened?  Yes but likely no one would agree on a solution.  Kids having kids isn't helping the situation.  And I know that many parents are simply incompetent.  Drugs and selfish ideas, poverty and desperation...on and on.  So many things contribute to the problem there is NO solution.  Best that can be hoped for is to bring the numbers down.  How that can be done will NEVER be agreed upon.  Oh well. 

Artful Dodger: Then.. it is fair to say it isn't a Christian value.

But would it fair (as you seem to avoid talking about) that anti gayness is a Christian (or fairer to say right wing conservative Christian) value. And the right wing Christian element is seeking to force on everyone else in the USA?

Or as described by Islam.... people of the book, not true Christians!!

(V):

Artful Dodger:

> Obeying the government is a Christian principle.

Where in the Bible does it say that? "To Caesar what is of caesar. To God what is of God." It is about as close as I see Jesus make a statement between the big divide of the Roman State and the reformed Judaism Jesus was preaching. Barrack obama is asking you to accept healthcare reform. Are you obeying his wishes as the head of your government?

> Being a good citizen is a Christian principle.

How so? What does a "good citizen" mean? Good citizens go to war when called to do so and they will kill on behalf of the state when called to do so. They will also apply the death penalty when called to do so by a court of law. Good citizens have the right to own lethal weapons because the constitution protects that right. Good citizens can also get rich at other good citizen's expense even though "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

> It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

But here is the thing, the "Christian ethic" existed before Jesus was born. The Christian ethic is the stoicist ethic of the Greeks as assimilated by the early church. Buddha was preaching what is essentially the same ethic a good 500 years before Christ. Christianity does not hold a monopoly on good and evil. If anything, Christianity is a "late comer" when compared to Greek and indian philosophers.

>> "Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

> I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

You are missing the point. It is an analogy. If people who did not pay "Defense Insurance" were not protected, they would be forced to go to war to defend themselves; just as those without healthcare are forced to fend for themselves when they have no money.

Übergeek 바둑이:<b>Übergeek 바둑이</b>: Artful Dodger:

> Obeying the government is a Christian principle.

Where in the Bible does it say that? "To Caesar what is of caesar. To God what is of God."

Romans 13:1 says, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
Acts 5:29 says, <span>"We must obey God rather than men." Whenever a government violates biblical teaching----

> Being a good citizen is a Christian principle.
How so? What does a "good citizen" mean?

Rom. 13:6-7, <span>"For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. ⁷ Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

> It doesn't make one a Christian just becuase they follow the principles. But there is no escaping the influence of the Judeo/Christian ethic.

But here is the thing, the "Christian ethic" existed before Jesus was born.

I never made the claim otherwise.  But there is no doubt that the Judeo/Christian ethic is foundational to laws in the US (just read all the early writings...."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  I'm not going to split hairs over the chicken or egg.

>> "Everybody is required to pay for Defense Insurance"

> I won't even bother with a statement like this. It's false on the face of it. Please don't post this again. It hurts when I fall on the floor and laugh my @$$ off.

You are missing the point. It is an analogy. If people who did not pay "Defense Insurance" were not protected, they would be forced to go to war to defend themselves; just as those without healthcare are forced to fend for themselves when they have no money.

Nonsense.   (meaning you make no sense here).   The government is required by LAW to protect its citizens and they are allowed by LAW to collect taxes.   It's NOT insurance.  That's just so far wrong there's no point in discussing it further.  Your analogy fails here.  Better for you to show why the individual mandate in the ObamaCare bill is Constitutional.  Paying for defense IS.