Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

[Trippy]

The last time I checked "meek" didn't mean "those that are not willing to provide for themselves". I've also said many times that children, disabled people and the elderly should not have to worry about health care. It's the perpetually unmotivated who I have a problem with.

Last time I checked "meek" it meant the poor.

What percentage of Americans are "perpetually unmotivated"?

Not according to Webster's.

According to the Bible silly

Anyone who is an able-bodied adult expecting someone else to pay for their well being.

You realize that able bodied adults can not find a job, right? You realize that there are able bodied adults who are the working poor, right? You realize that a capitalist market is flawed, right?

Your position, however, is 'to hell with them' those 'meek' individuals who, as Christ says, shall 'inherit the earth'? Really?

 

[CaptainStoner]

Anyone who is an able-bodied adult expecting someone else to pay for their well being.

How many of these people are there really? If you eliminate children in poverty, the disabled, and the elderly, how many of these remain?
I think a lot of what is driving this discussion is a fundamental disagreement about human nature, which I don't believe is sloth.
There is nothing more natural and driving than to provide for oneself and one's family.
However, where there is perpetual lack of motivation - that my friend is a psychological problem. I don't think its intrinsic to human nature. It may be a personality disorder, but that is an effect, not a cause.
For these people I think good spiritual guidance in whatever form they can ingest is the needed medicine. But I think the unnatural states that modern humans live in is worth looking into also.

 

[Roger Wilco]

^^
Plus, I'd like to remind TLS of the poll in TNZ where not a single person from a UHC country mentioned that he'd prefer it abolished (or something like that, I don't remember the exact phrasing).

Since this board leans about 95% ultra-left that's hardly surprising.

Where I'm from, health care is not a partisan left-right issue at all. There's debate about the costs, there's debate about the details of implementation and about how public and private health insurance work together, but whether or not there should be public health insurance is completely out of question, on the right just as on the left.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Last time I checked "meek" it meant the poor.

Not according to Webster's.

According to the Bible silly

"Meek" doesn't mean "poor" in either Webster's OR the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I'd like to know if I can join a death panel, the first person I vote for is Sarah Palin and her whole family.

You've been given an infraction for trolling. Even joking that remark is way beyond the pale and would have resulted in a warning had it been directed at a politician of an opposing party as well. Please do not make this kind of remark here again.

Comments to PM.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Not according to Webster's.

According to the Bible silly

"Meek" doesn't mean "poor" in either Webster's OR the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ.

Would Jesus oppose Universal Health Care?

 

[Chaos Descending]

According to the Bible silly

"Meek" doesn't mean "poor" in either Webster's OR the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ.

Would Jesus oppose Universal Health Care?

If he did or did not would that change the definition of "meek" from "mild tempered, humble" to "poor"?

 

[Misfit Toy]

"Meek" doesn't mean "poor" in either Webster's OR the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ.

Would Jesus oppose Universal Health Care?

If he did or did not would that change the definition of "meek" from "mild tempered, humble" to "poor"?

I don't know. Do you think Jesus would oppose Universal Health Care?

 

[CaptainStoner]

Where I'm from, health care is not a partisan left-right issue at all. There's debate about the costs, there's debate about the details of implementation and about how public and private health insurance work together, but whether or not there should be public health insurance is completely out of question, on the right just as on the left.

Exactly. Unforunately UHC has become another way to rail against Obama, which is in turn caused by the usurping of democracy in 2000 with Bush. In other words the pendulum has so much energy in it, starting in 2000, that 1/3rd or so of the country is blinded by it whichever side its on.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Would Jesus oppose Universal Health Care?

If he did or did not would that change the definition of "meek" from "mild tempered, humble" to "poor"?

I don't know. Do you think Jesus would oppose Universal Health Care?

I'm not attacking your conclusion (Jesus would or would not support UHC), I'm attacking your faulty argument ("meek" in the Bible means "poor").

Just admit that you're wrong, adjust your tactics accordingly, and move on.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

No, plain and simple.

The disgusting way the DEmocrats pushed this through, the lies, the insults (anybody remember "Evil mongers"? How about the Republican "Plan"? Just two examples), the multi-million dollar deals that will cost tax payers, the blatant lack of respect for the public who elected them ... that's off the top of my head. All this will cost them the majority. Will it be a Republican majority next time around? Not so much, but it'll still be largely Republican, and enough so that if this "Bill" passes, it'll be overturned by the Republicans.

I'm going to have to register to vote just so I can put another count to the Republicans. It's not simply enough a case in the last few elections where I disagreed with Democrat/Republican stances and could simply look the other way, these Democrat fuckers are shoving it down our throats in the most disgustingly dastardly ways and have the audacity to tell us we're gonna like it. At a certain point you got to do something about it.

 

[Misfit Toy]

If he did or did not would that change the definition of "meek" from "mild tempered, humble" to "poor"?

I don't know. Do you think Jesus would oppose Universal Health Care?

I'm not attacking your conclusion (Jesus would or would not support UHC), I'm attacking your faulty argument ("meek" in the Bible means "poor").

Just admit that you're wrong, adjust your tactics accordingly, and move on.

I never claimed that meek meant poor. Admit your own error.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Ack, you see one green name, you've seen them all.

My apologies. Error duly admitted, Mr. Mod Guy Who Is Not Named Trip-the-Elf.

To go you one further, as a peace offering in good faith, I'll answer your question to me, from Post #186.

No, Jesus would likely NOT have opposed a universal health care program of some sort. In fact, paying of tithes to support the poor and the sick was an Old Testament law in any case.

 

[Trippy]

The Hebrew word used in that passage, "anav" can be translated as: meek, humble, poor and afflicted.

Just sayin'

Oh, and I'm a MS. Mod Woman Trip-the-Elf

 

[Misfit Toy]

Ack, you see one green name, you've seen them all.

My apologies. Error duly admitted, Mr. Mod Guy Who Is Not Named Trip-the-Elf.

To go you one further, as a peace offering in good faith, I'll answer your question to me, from Post #186.

No, Jesus would likely NOT have opposed a universal health care program of some sort. In fact, paying of tithes to support the poor and the sick was an Old Testament law in any case.

Thanks

I agree - especially about the tithe. I think those that argue for a Christian version of Sharia law would like to overlook
the concept of tithing.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The Hebrew word used in that passage, "anav" can be translated as: meek, humble, poor and afflicted.

Just sayin'

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and the word used in that passage was "praos", and is pretty much universally translated as, well, "meek".

I'm reading up now on this "anav" business, as this is the first I've really heard of that.

EDIT: Durrrr...... "anav" was in the Psalm referenced by Jesus, but the New Testament authors chose "praos" for the Greek manuscript. "Praos" really means "meek" in the sense of "restraining one's self", in other words, showing self-control and self-discipline in the face of adversity.

Oh, and I'm a MS. Mod Woman Trip-the-Elf

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[Trippy]

^ sorry!

Not to go further off topic, but I've studied the history of the bible. There's some great books on the source material for the Greeks (was it by way of the Hebrews?)

The point I was originally making is that some posters have a religious 'zeal' shall we say, and still make the 'what's mine is mine' argument regarding health care, which I find ironical.

 

[Arrqh]

Forgive me if I don't trust them while they steal from me and give to someone who should be able to provide for themselves.

Taxes are not stealing. Trying to portray them as such is extremely dishonest. Again, you trying to frame this argument in a dishonest way won't change the facts.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Not according to Webster's.

According to the Bible silly

"Meek" doesn't mean "poor" in either Webster's OR the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ.

Exactly.

The biblical--read: Greek--definition of "meek" is simply "power under control".

In other words, the calm and rational shall inherit the earth.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Forgive me if I don't trust them while they steal from me and give to someone who should be able to provide for themselves.

Taxes are not stealing. Trying to portray them as such is extremely dishonest. Again, you trying to frame this argument in a dishonest way won't change the facts.

Umm, carbon tax, health care tax, on top of sales tax, gas tax, income tax, and coming soon from a socialist administration near you....VAT tax.

Excessive taxation is indeed STEALING. That's a fact.

Oh, I forgot...coming soon...soda tax!