Can anybody help me in this debate with teo.

Bob wrote:
I appreciate that and your familiarity with it. But now there is no University Hospital. All the trauma care is done by the private hospitals.
SO, if EMTALA was rescinded now and we followed yours (and others') philosophy to a T (no pun intended), there would be examples of people dying only because they couldn't pay for their medical treatment themselves.

Again I ask the question. Would your deity be okay with that?

Why should God be concerned with abstract human constructs?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky1nY3jlq1M

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Why should God be concerned with abstract human constructs?

Since I'm not posting anymore can someone please point out to him the inconsistency of that statement when we consider all the varied and many ways conservative Christians want to have God "be concerned with abstract human constructs" all the time and he's never posted to object to that? lol

boards of FL wrote:Public utilities, infrastructure, fire safety, police, etc. Basically goods or services that are non rivalrous and not excludable in consumption.

If you're saying that health care is a basic right of all then nationalize the hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc... and make the same level of health care available to all. None of this everyone everyone has to buy insurance from some private company.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M94aqtlvRWM

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Why should God be concerned with abstract human constructs?

Since I'm not posting anymore can someone please point out to him the inconsistency of that statement when we consider all the varied and many ways conservative Christians want to have God "be concerned with abstract human constructs" all the time and he's never posted to object to that? lol

Who ever said I was Christian?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAkSIwaUaNc

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If you're saying that health care is a basic right of all then nationalize the hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc... and make the same level of health care available to all. None of this everyone everyone has to buy insurance from some private company.

That's like me saying this to you. If you believe that having government is more harmful to people than not having government then let's do away with every facet of government and live completely without it.
In my opinion, either statement is thoughtless fanaticism.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Why should God be concerned with abstract human constructs?

Since I'm not posting anymore can someone please point out to him the inconsistency of that statement when we consider all the varied and many ways conservative Christians want to have God "be concerned with abstract human constructs" all the time and he's never posted to object to that? lol

Who ever said I was Christian?

I very intentionally did not say that. I said you only objected to what I said and not all what your fellow political "conservatives" are saying all the time when they want God to be "concerned with abstract human constructs" as you put it.

Additionally, since when is life and death an "abstract concept"? I never heard of any such opinion till you're saying it now.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If you're saying that health care is a basic right of all then nationalize the hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc... and make the same level of health care available to all. None of this everyone everyone has to buy insurance from some private company.

That's like me saying this to you. If you believe that having government is more harmful to people than not having government then let's do away with every facet of government and live completely without it.
In my opinion, either statement is thoughtless fanaticism.

NO! You're demanding that everyone be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company. If health care is a basic right of every citizen as you seem to think then every aspect of our health care should be controlled and provided by the government and distributed equally to all as your prior statements suggest.

Anything less is tyranny of one group over another.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_zks9fmDjc

Is it an "abstract concept" when conservative Christians want to go to any lengths to protect a human life from abortion?
If it is, you're the very first person I ever heard of to have that opinion.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Why should God be concerned with abstract human constructs?

Since I'm not posting anymore can someone please point out to him the inconsistency of that statement when we consider all the varied and many ways conservative Christians want to have God "be concerned with abstract human constructs" all the time and he's never posted to object to that? lol

Who ever said I was Christian?

I very intentionally did not say that. I said you only objected to what I said and not all what your fellow political "conservatives" are saying all the time when they want God to be "concerned with abstract human constructs" as you put it.

Additionally, since when is life and death an "abstract concept"? I never heard of any such opinion till you're saying it now.

How can you be sure that life and death aren't some abstract human construct?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky1nY3jlq1M

Damaged Eagle wrote:

You're demanding that everyone be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company.

If you can refer to any post I've made to any forum in the last 60 years that has me advocating that "everyone should be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company" then I will send $1000 to any paypal email you wish.
But if you can't refer to that, then you need to say "I attributed something to you that was just made up and not true and I take it back".

Damaged Eagle wrote:

How can you be sure that life and death aren't some abstract human construct?

Do you think wanting to preserve the life of an unborn fetus is "an abstract human concept"? Do you disagree with Christians who say it's not abstract at all but for that fetus to be born into the world is a God given right? A God given right is the most "non-abstract" concept in existence for Christians.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

You're demanding that everyone be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company.

If you can refer to any post I've made to any forum in the last 60 years that has me advocating that "everyone should be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company" then I will send $1000 to any paypal email you wish.
But if you can't refer to that, then you need to say "I attributed something to you that was just made up and not true and I take it back".

Then you're advocating that the health care bill enacted three years ago should be rescinded. Right?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

How can you be sure that life and death aren't some abstract human construct?

Do you think wanting to preserve the life of an unborn fetus is "an abstract human concept"? Do you disagree with Christians who say it's not abstract at all but for that fetus to be born into the world is a God given right? A God given right is the most "non-abstract" concept in existence for Christians.

My thoughts are that if an abortion is to be done then it should be decided on quickly and done quickly. Like within the first trimester unless it is a matter of life and death to the mother or child.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

Damaged Eagle wrote:

My thoughts are that if an abortion is to be done then it should be decided on quickly and done quickly. Like within the first trimester unless it is a matter of life and death to the mother or child.

No disagreement from me on that.

Here's the whole point though. A lot of conservatives disagree with both you and me on that and believe there should be no abortion during any trimester. Some of them are even prominent politicians and major presidential contenders.

BUT, I have only heard one conservative ever say that the government should not be able to tell hospitals to save the life of an injured person when that person cannot pay for his medical treatment. And that person posted that opinion to this forum tonight before he left the forum.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

My thoughts are that if an abortion is to be done then it should be decided on quickly and done quickly. Like within the first trimester unless it is a matter of life and death to the mother or child.

No disagreement from me on that.

Here's the whole point though. A lot of conservatives disagree with both you and me on that and believe there should be no abortion during any trimester. Some of them are even prominent politicians and major presidential contenders.

BUT, I have only heard one conservative ever say that the government should not be able to tell hospitals to save the life of an injured person when that person cannot pay for his medical treatment. And that person posted that opinion to this forum tonight before he left the forum.

I'm Neo-Conservative with a twist. My alliances with the conservative faction is that I'm a strong fiscal conservative.

People die because they can't pay for advanced medical treatments everyday. If the government is going to step in on the behalf of one person are they also going to step in on the behalf of all people? If so then the government should have absolute control of all health care and none of this dickering around and forcing people to purchase health care insurance from a private company (which I consider unConstitutional).

Anything less on the governments part is tyranny and discrimination.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Then you're advocating that the health care bill enacted three years ago should be rescinded. Right?

I've always had the opinion that obama's health care reform is a mistake. Mainly for two reasons. One, even though he lies about this, it does not really address the real crises with health care in our country, which is that we are paying more than double per-capita for health care than any other nation in the world and that gap is still widening as we speak. And two, that the "obamacare" law was the most spliced together bunch of government bureaucratic jury-rigged bullshit designed to get parochial votes in congress with pork barrel payoffs and god knows what all that it is longer in length and more convoluted than any other piece of written text ever conceived in the history of human civilization or lack thereof.
When a legal scholar on the Supreme Court says "I aint readin the 2500 pages of that bullshit" and pelosi said "we have to pass it before we read it to understand what we're voting on" that was enough craziness to convince me.

The only reason obama does anything or expresses any opinion is because whatever he does or expresses is designed to tell his voter base what it wants to hear and needs to hear to get their vote.
The only reason romney promises anything (god knows what he's done politically is all over the fucking board depending on which jurisdictional voter base he's pandering to) is because whatever he promises is designed to tell his voter base what it wants to hear and needs to hear to get their vote.

That much is crystal clear to any person with any degree of observational powers.
Everything else I take with a grain of salt.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Then you're advocating that the health care bill enacted three years ago should be rescinded. Right?

I've always had the opinion that obama's health care reform is a mistake. Mainly for two reasons. One, even though he lies about this, it does not really address the real crises with health care in our country, which is that we are paying more than double per-capita for health care than any other nation in the world and that gap is still widening as we speak. And two, that the "obamacare" law was the most spliced together bunch of government bureaucratic jury-rigged bullshit designed to get parochial votes in congress with pork barrel payoffs and god knows what all that it is longer in length and more convoluted than any other piece of written text ever conceived in the history of human civilization or lack thereof.
When a legal scholar on the Supreme Court says "I aint readin the 2500 pages of that bullshit" and pelosi said "we have to pass it before we read it to understand what we're voting on" that was enough craziness to convince me.

Response to Reason #1:

Perhaps the problem lies with the ethics and greed of some individuals who have four and more year degrees. Why don't you join the other discussion about 6 digit salaries and retirements.

Response to Reason #2

It does smell like a hog waste confinement pit doesn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

But my observational powers also tell me that the fucking Chief Executives of BP and AIG (my first cousin's father in law) and a whole slew of other "private sector" personalities are equally suspect.

As I said, none of it is anything I'll ever want to worship or blindly follow.
And nothing I would ever want to turn my back on.
It is all a necessary evil. Both the "public" and the "private" institutions. Necessary tools to maintain this cockamammy modern society we all live in and nothing more.

Damaged Eagle wrote: Why don't you join the other discussion about 6 digit salaries and retirements.

I already did but you missed it. I talked about my own fucking uncle.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

People die because they can't pay for advanced medical treatments everyday. If the government is going to step in on the behalf of one person are they also going to step in on the behalf of all people? If so then the government should have absolute control of all health care and none of this dickering around and forcing people to purchase health care insurance from a private company (which I consider unConstitutional).

30,000+ people die in car wrecks ever year. But that doesn't mean the only wise course of action is to either ban cars alltogether or mandate that they all be made as safe as sitting in a recliner inside one's living room.
Either is just an extremist response.

That's the problem with the political divide we're now experiencing. It's mostly turned into just extremists on one side or the other blowing hard.
That's because the audience for it is similiar to the audience for pro wrestling.

It's ten after one. I've got to get some sleep. we've been at this for hours.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

If you're saying that health care is a basic right of all then nationalize the hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc... and make the same level of health care available to all. None of this everyone everyone has to buy insurance from some private company.

That's like me saying this to you. If you believe that having government is more harmful to people than not having government then let's do away with every facet of government and live completely without it.
In my opinion, either statement is thoughtless fanaticism.

NO! You're demanding that everyone be forced to purchase health insurance from a private sector company. If health care is a basic right of every citizen as you seem to think then every aspect of our health care should be controlled and provided by the government and distributed equally to all as your prior statements suggest.

Anything less is tyranny of one group over another.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_zks9fmDjc

Why shouldn't people have to pay for a service they use? Why should we have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

Dreamsglore wrote:

Why shouldn't people have to pay for a service they use? Why should we have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

I know you're directing this to eagle. But it's unclear to me why you're asking eagle either of these questions.
Because I presume eagle DOES believe someone should pay for a service he uses.
And I also presume eagle is asking the same question as you've asked with your second question... "why should we have to pay for someone else's healthcare?" Correct me if I'm wrong but from what eagle has said, he does NOT believe anyone should pay for someone else's health care.

Are these trick questions and there's something I'm missing about them? lol

Bob wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Why shouldn't people have to pay for a service they use? Why should we have to pay for someone else's healthcare?

I know you're directing this to eagle. But it's unclear to me why you're asking eagle either of these questions.
Because I presume eagle DOES believe someone should pay for a service he uses.
And I also presume eagle is asking the same question as you've asked with your second question... "why should we have to pay for someone else's healthcare?" Correct me if I'm wrong but from what eagle has said, he does NOT believe anyone should pay for someone else's health care.

Are these trick questions and there's something I'm missing about them? lol

I think I read his response correctly. He said he doesn't believe you should be forced to pay for private insurance.