Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Immanuel Can]

Well, how is "your own reading" decided?

It's done the same way all good reading is done: in a way sensitive to genre and context, carefully, with attention to the meaning of words, using logic and accurate reasoning to parse implications, and with humility. These "epistemic virtues"...

Well, if you had applied them, you would understand the question is how do you decide what to read? What makes you, Mr Can, pick up a book in the first place?

If you were reading well, you'd have recognized that your question was ambiguous -- that it was capable of more than one interpretation, so I had to select which I thought was the most reasonable for you to ask.

I can't understand the relevance of your question, as you now seem to want to frame it. Maybe you'll explain. On the face of it, I would reply, why wouldn't a person want to read, and why would they need a special mechanism for the selection of reading material? (As a general question, it's an odd one, you have to admit. So what did you mean to point to by asking it?)

[FlashDangerpants]

Pseudo-Socialism in places like NY and Cali.

Realism elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FawycgB0FDE

What's the message there? And the lord sayeth, every man for hmself, f*** the women and children?

Now that Christian parables are served up by utter heartless bastards like you, rather than that nice Jesus chap who wanted to help people, the quality of them has sunk to quite deplorable levels.

[Immanuel Can]

Pseudo-Socialism in places like NY and Cali.

Realism elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FawycgB0FDE

What's the message there? And the lord sayeth, every man for hmself, f*** the women and children?

Now that Christian parables are served up by utter heartless bastards like you, rather than that nice Jesus chap who wanted to help people, the quality of them has sunk to quite deplorable levels.

Your assumption, then, is that Jesus Christ would want Socialized medicine? He would want more taxation, and want it devoted to an ideological system that has never succeeded? He would want bigger government, more centralization, more control? He would want more graft, waste and fraud? He would want doctors to stop practicing or move out of the country? He would want fewer technological options for treatment? He would want "women and children" to be poor and without medical care, living in the midst of a crashing economy? And He would want us to suppose that the addicts, the mentally ill and the migrants are already served well enough by the existing system? Because that's what the socialized medicine advocates are campaigning for here, whether they are aware of it or not. Their simplistic and economically unsound wishes would produce all these things.

This is what you think?

You should read the book "The Righteous Mind." It would teach you two things: one, that people on both sides of the debate are not heartless, and two, that what they differ on is the question of HOW to be merciful, not WHETHER or NOT to be merciful. You'd also learn that self-righteous attitudes are not something that happen merely on the conservative right, but happen far more often on the ideological Left.

And I should mention that the author is a lifelong Democrat.

Read a book. It will do you good.

[MikeNovack]

on the streets every day, in encampments, bent over with addiction, yelling madly on street corners

Well where I live (relatively rural New England) the "rough sleepers" tend to be people in encampments in the woods, reasonably able to take care of themselves. The sort you see "bent over with addiction, yelling madly on street corners" can survive in this climate in "shelters", not the New England woods in winter.

Now WHY are these homeless people encamped in the woods? (rather than in shelters). They are homeless folks unwilling to have their dog killed, couples unwilling to separate, etc. Yeah some alcoholics, but not passing out drunk and same with other drugs. Do that and freeze to death. There sometimes are deaths, usually CO poisoning (something blocks their makeshift flue while they are sleeping).

Note that a person can be pretty severely mentally ill without that interfering with their savvy about surviving in the winter woods.

[Immanuel Can]

on the streets every day, in encampments, bent over with addiction, yelling madly on street corners

Well where I live (relatively rural New England) the "rough sleepers" tend to be people in encampments in the woods, reasonably able to take care of themselves.

So you've never seen the sort of encampments that are in the cities, and don't know? But you should. I sent you enough videos, from different countries, too.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is what you think?

Jesus would absolutely want all the sick to receive treatment, and you expose yourself as a fraudulent Christian with all this horrible shit.

[phyllo]

It would teach you two things: one, that people on both sides of the debate are not heartless, and two, that what they differ on is the question of HOW to be merciful, not WHETHER or NOT to be merciful.

In what way are you merciful?

[Gary Childress]

Pseudo-Socialism in places like NY and Cali.

Realism elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FawycgB0FDE

What's the message there? And the lord sayeth, every man for hmself, f*** the women and children?

Now that Christian parables are served up by utter heartless bastards like you, rather than that nice Jesus chap who wanted to help people, the quality of them has sunk to quite deplorable levels.

Your assumption, then, is that Jesus Christ would want Socialized medicine? He would want more taxation,

If the taxes to support social programs for the poor came from the rich, then I don't see why Jesus would protest. "Socialism" taxes the rich in order to have programs for the poor.

[Immanuel Can]

It would teach you two things: one, that people on both sides of the debate are not heartless, and two, that what they differ on is the question of HOW to be merciful, not WHETHER or NOT to be merciful.

In what way are you merciful?

I'm very keen that there should be a solution to people's medical needs. But I recognize that that need is too serious for phony "solutions" that merely create more misery. The Socialists are happy with simple-minded "solutions" like "the government will pay for it," without a single serious thought for the fact that the government has no money of its own, and taxes it out of the poor, or that there's not a single thing that big governments do efficiently and well.

They're throwing widows and orphans to their ideological wolves. How is that merciful?

[Gary Childress]

It would teach you two things: one, that people on both sides of the debate are not heartless, and two, that what they differ on is the question of HOW to be merciful, not WHETHER or NOT to be merciful.

In what way are you merciful?

I'm very keen that there should be a solution to people's medical needs. But I recognize that that need is too serious for phony "solutions" that merely create more misery. The Socialists are happy with simple-minded "solutions" like "the government will pay for it," without a single serious thought for the fact that the government has no money of its own, and taxes it out of the poor, or that there's not a single thing that big governments do efficiently and well.

They're throwing widows and orphans to their ideological wolves. How is that merciful?

See my post above. What if governments taxed the wealthy to pay for social programs instead of the poor? Wouldn't that be more proper since the wealthy take more of the wealth from industry than individual workers do?

[FlashDangerpants]

What's the message there? And the lord sayeth, every man for hmself, f*** the women and children?

Now that Christian parables are served up by utter heartless bastards like you, rather than that nice Jesus chap who wanted to help people, the quality of them has sunk to quite deplorable levels.

Your assumption, then, is that Jesus Christ would want Socialized medicine? He would want more taxation,

If the taxes to support social programs for the poor came from the rich, then I don't see why Jesus would protest. "Socialism" taxes the rich in order to have programs for the poor.

Jesus wouldn't protest about taxes either way, that's what the whole render unto Caesar thing is about. On a seperate note he apparently had some stuff to say about wealth accumulation not being spiritually important, but that's not the point. Taxes are an Earthly concern not a spiritual one, and Jesus said to pay them.

[Gary Childress]

Your assumption, then, is that Jesus Christ would want Socialized medicine? He would want more taxation,

If the taxes to support social programs for the poor came from the rich, then I don't see why Jesus would protest. "Socialism" taxes the rich in order to have programs for the poor.

Jesus wouldn't protest about taxes either way, that's what the whole render unto Caesar thing is about. On a seperate note he apparently had some stuff to say about wealth accumulation not being spiritually important, but that's not the point. Taxes are an Earthly concern not a spiritual one, and Jesus said to pay them.

True. But my point is that every time someone mentions taxing the wealthy, IC says, "No, that won't work." Apparently, he's only willing to pay for enough social programs that the taxes of the poor can support. If the rich have to be taxed, then all his imaginary roadblocks pop up.

[Immanuel Can]

What if governments taxed the wealthy to pay for social programs instead of the poor?

They already do. In fact, they tax both, and on a progressive scale that means the rich end up paying most of the taxes. In Canada, for example, which reputedly has "universal health care" as well as an extremely high tax rate, the rich pay between 62% and 64% of all taxes. And that's just looking at income tax, not sales tax, carbon tax...etc. And it's still not enough to keep the system up. So the government has either got to tax the rich to death...in which case, just watch how fast they all move their assets offshore and how fast they migrate to the US...or has got to start squeezing the middle class again...which it routinely already does.

[phyllo]

It would teach you two things: one, that people on both sides of the debate are not heartless, and two, that what they differ on is the question of HOW to be merciful, not WHETHER or NOT to be merciful.

In what way are you merciful?

I'm very keen that there should be a solution to people's medical needs. But I recognize that that need is too serious for phony "solutions" that merely create more misery. The Socialists are happy with simple-minded "solutions" like "the government will pay for it," without a single serious thought for the fact that the government has no money of its own, and taxes it out of the poor, or that there's not a single thing that big governments do efficiently and well.

They're throwing widows and orphans to their ideological wolves. How is that merciful?

Right. You're merciful in some non-specific way.

What should be done for people's medical needs?

Well, something that works. Something that solves the problems. Something that alleviates their suffering. You know.

[FlashDangerpants]

If the taxes to support social programs for the poor came from the rich, then I don't see why Jesus would protest. "Socialism" taxes the rich in order to have programs for the poor.

Jesus wouldn't protest about taxes either way, that's what the whole render unto Caesar thing is about. On a seperate note he apparently had some stuff to say about wealth accumulation not being spiritually important, but that's not the point. Taxes are an Earthly concern not a spiritual one, and Jesus said to pay them.

True. But my point is that every time someone mentions taxing the wealthy, IC says, "No, that won't work." Apparently, he's only willing to pay for enough social programs that the taxes of the poor can support. If the rich have to be taxed, then all his imaginary roadblocks pop up.

General taxation as it presently stands is sufficient to provide good quality healthcare for the entire populace of any developed nation. There is no need for a special levy on the well to do. You already raise the money. You just don't spend it all that well because for-profit healthcare is extremely inefficient compared to the systems used elsewhere.

All that remains is for the voting populace of those nations to decide what level of normal taxation they are willing to pay for the level of healthcare services they wish to recieve. If they dedicate only the 11 or so percent of GDP that the UK and Canada pay, they will get services such as can be provided if roughly one in ten workers is employed in healthcare. If they prefer to spend the 17 percent of GDP that the USA currently does, then they will get services rendered by almost two in ten workers. Which should be very good I imagine now that half the healthcare workers aren't employed in the tricky field of denying coverage to those in need of medicine.