Total posts: 1,331
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
you could also take the stance, that if a person causes another person to need an organ, then they should be required, by law, to provide it. i know civilized society wouldn't think of it, but who cares. if you cause someone to need a kidney, you should be required to give it to them. it's only fair. id say it's only fair, even if your life ends by giving the organ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i dont know how he would explain being a catholic who is also an atheist. i also dont know why he considers himself catholic given he doesn't believe a lot of what they say is required for catholics to be believed. i think he's a super smart guy, but he just hasn't really delved into the complex arena of christian theology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
i think you might be confusing me with orogami.
Created:
Posted in:
eastern christians believe in theosis... it's a process of salvation, increasing in holiness. they dont use justification or sanctification as words, given those are tied to the legal concepts of atonement, but theosis is similar idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
catholics and protestants both believe in justification and sanctification. justification is how we become right by God, and in western theology being right with him is a legal relationship. (eastern christians dont believe we have a legal relationship with God, which is more how i view it, but the west have good arguments) santification is how we increase in holiness. catholics believe that when we do good things and sanctify ourselves, it adds to our justification. what we lack in justification, Jesus makes up for in his atonement. and they believe purgatory is where we deal with purging ourselves with the stains of our sins and further increase our justification. protestants believe that sanctification doesn't add to our justification... they believe Jesus' atonement covers our justification completely. to stress, it's important to tie the concepts of justification and atonement together. different ideas thologically, but related. it's also important to tie the classic 'faith saves' 'faith plus works saves' debate to justification and sanctification.
the main reason i am not catholic is because of their idea of infallibility, but i would consider being a catholic who doesn't believe that specific doctrine. it's just easier for me to identify as non denominational.
i know a ton about christian theology and the bible, and catholic theology, cause i grew up catholic. if you have any questions, i know i can point you in the right direction for things to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
my point in describing the atonment where Jesus defeated death, is also to point out that we as humans cannot defeat death. only Jesus can as a perfect embodiment of love. we cannot be forgiven without a perfect sacrifice, because we are mere sinful creatures and our petition isnt perfect without Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
you could switch to a theology similar to catholics, or you could look at God as unconditional love, or you could consider the idea of sancitification. catholics believe our sins must be made up for as humans and anything that isn't made up for must be purged in purgatory. protestants believe we are atoned by jesus, but even they believe in sancification.... which is like catholics idea of atonement except protestants dont think that purging process is what saves us. also, you could look at God as unconditional love and forgiveness, but just remember that that doesn't mean that there are no consequences to our actions. if we are forgiven unconditionally, you are quibbling over God being too generous... and if you want consequences, just focus on the natural consequences to the things you do, or look at sancification.
Created:
Posted in:
things are the way they are. that's just the way it is. there's a lot of room to complain but it's not our place to say it's wrong. we might speculate conventional wisdom is correct, but eventually you just have to take things on faith.
Romans 9:20 "Therefore, who are you, oh son of man, that you give a rebuttal to God? Does the thing formed say to the one who formed it, “Why have you made me this way?”
Created:
it's worth noting that i think the general understanding among church fathers was that baptism was an actual healing or washing away of sins. i dont think this is how modern protestants would look at it. i also dont think that was the only understanding among the church fathers.
Created:
Posted in:
jesus' death was a self sacrifice. our nature human nature is to die. jesus' nature as a human was to die, but as a divine being to rise and live eternally. he had a right to self defense. even jesus during the ordeal said he had the power to call down legions of angels to save him, but he chose not to. he chose not to utilize his right to self defense, and in so doing he died, and when he rose, he defeated both sin and death. love conquered death. God wouldn't let jesus die. christians are adopted brothers and sisters of christ.... and we're all united by the power of love through Jesus' death. with Jesus we die, with him we will rise from the dead.
this narrative isn't the way it has to be... it's just the way it is, the way God made it to be designed.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
i think it might be beneficial to tie the faith v works debate to the infant v no infant baptism debate.
why baptize a baby if he doesn't have faith? can that baptism save them? if you are catholic or of the 'works can add to our justification' circle, then the sacraments are holy and can impart an increase in justification. or, you could even go so far as to say the baptism, 'initially saves' the infant, as if that's God's way of doing so.
of course, if you dont follow the works part and say works are only the result of saving faith, what's the point of infant baptism, if the baby has no faith? i know even some protestants believe God might save babies, even though they technically aren't believers, but whether the baby was baptized doesn't seem to matter if faith or pure mercy is the only standard. maybe GOd saves the mentally ill like those with autism too, like he does infants... but maybe that doesn't mean the mentally ill nor infants need baptized. maybe the general rule is that someone seeking with faith should be baptized.
i think a protestant could say 'it's just good form to baptize babies', but i dont know why it would matter so much.
it's also important to note, that the bible says that households were baptized. that may imply that babies were baptized, but we really can't know for sure. that's what the catholics think, though.
Created:
Posted in:
not that i'm trying to rehash this thread. but it looks like the skeptics are arguing that the universe should be considered possibly an uncaused cause and their reason for choosing that over the universe being an effect, is because it looks like a simpler argument. that might be plausible, and i concede we dont know the answer, but my opening post is why i disagree. believers think the universe is an effect. the reason, is because of what i posted in my opening post... thermodynamics and a finite v infinite begining and end. ockhams razor might be to look for a simple solution, but it's only a the best approach when you dont have a reason to think otherwise. we have plenty of reason to think otherwise. again i acknowledge every proposed solution breaks down with our normal understanding, so maybe we should consider the universe itself as a special circumstance and our rules dont apply to... and thus, it's plausible to say the universe is an uncaused cause. i just disagree that that's the best argument.
on a related note, i wonder if defining an uncause cause an an "eternal uncaused cause" or "uncaused infinite regress" a fortiori. would be helpful. cause i'm thinking an uncaused cause could be possibly not eternal, but it would make more sense if it was eternal. i think this is a point that isn't defined or discussed very well in causality debates
Created:
also insect farms are a good idea too.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
this seems to indicate we will need more food production
do you have a source that we will produce enough in the future? my general understanding is that right now we produce enough food, but i dont know the extent if we need to ration at all right now. i understand the main problem is getting food to remote areas, distribution.
Created:
Posted in:
what say ye?
Created:
what say ye?
Created:
Posted in:
this topic reminds me of the differing views of atonement. penal substitution v christus victor, they are called. one focuses on jesus' death, while the other focuses on his resurrection. im partial to christus victor and easter, but there's good arguments to be made for penal substitution and good friday, focusing on his death.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
???
Created:
because the number of illegal immigrants in our population doesn't really go up, it just fluctuates. like, twenty years ago there were twice as many illegals here, but over the years its gone down, and just fluctuates.
i always thought a wall or good fence was a good idea, but now i'm not so sure.
(it's obvious a wall would keep some illegals out. if you hinder their access, less will come. it's idiotic of liberals to say a wall wouldn't prevent anyone from coming, just like it's idiotic of conservatives to say gun control or limiting guns wouldn't decrease murders. it's the same stupid idea, as if a fire extinguisher wouldn't lessen the extent of fires)
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
this link has the literature reviews that directly contradict your arguments. literatures are a lot more persuasive than he said she said or this example v that example. it also has all the other science that i posted on each fact. it also has the fact that non-gun murders aren't wildly out of control in the usa v other countries, when if this was a bad person problem, it would be, or should be.... i dont think any of ya'll are capable of acknowledging this, because ya'll have a glitch in your brains, similar to a delusion where you can't be reasoned with.
"It's the basic principal dude.
Question:
Is it good for criminals to have a more advanced weapon than everyone else? Simple question. "
it's irrelevant if bad guys have worse guys, if for practical purposes it doesn't change anything. the end result as it is now, is that criminals are more efficient in killing when defensive use is almost never needed with an AR. you're insisting on the principle, but it has no purpose. it's a non sequiter.
" if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Yes, but if a bad guy gets a gun illegally and everyone else only has knives, then what then? More people are going to die because of that. "
you are changing the goal post. the point is that guns cause mass killings to be more deadly than without a gun. you are making an illogical point by changing the goal post, or at least deflecting and not acknowledging the truth. you have a good point to argue, about defensive gun uses... but that doesn't change that gun attacks are much more deadly than non gun attacks.
" if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
Guns are used for threatening more than killing. Think about it.
If your mad at a dude and you pull out a knife, you are committing to the murder, because once you pull it out, it's all hands on.
But if your mad at a dude and you pull out a gun, you are most likely using it as a threat more than an actual weapon. "
you dont understand human nature. maybe most of the time a gun will be used to threaten but not all the time. it's illogical for you to pretend like that's what always happens.... of if you aknowledge that that's not what always happens, then you are mentally glitching on the fact that sometimes a person is just impulsive and the ability to push a button will cause him to kill a group of others quickly, when if no gun was there, it woudln't have happened like that.
on the point of self defense with guns. you say 70000 defensive gun uses every year. well, we know the large majority of those are not involving actually shooting anyone. yet, we know that there are 100,000 gun shots taken care of at hosptials every year. that means most of the shootings that we actually see, are from an aggressor. also, only around five hundred people... five hundred only... are killed because they were the first aggressor. we know that there are over ten thousand murder per year, which means that compared to a bunch of defensive gun uses where the gun may have not even been needed, the rate of murder v using a gun is much higher.
cause the thing with all those defensive gun uses, we also know that a lot of them were just people who thought they needed the gun but really didn't... they might take a gun because they hear a noise, and assume they needed the gun in that sitaution. and maybe they did, but the gun didn't really change anything. you can give every one a gun, and the number of defensive gun uses would sky rocket... but that doesn't mean pepole are being safer all the time, it just means guns are being used more often. (i acknowledge that everyone having a gun would save some people, full stop, but that would come at a cost) sometimes the person who thinks they needed a gun were just being the aggresor themself, that's human nature to think they're always the victim. these 'defensive gun use' studies on based on surveys after all.
Created:
having an AR doesn't give an advantage against a bad guy that has one, for practical purposes. you never see shoot outs with ARs. what you do see are people murdering with them, not infreuently. you dont see defensive gun use with AR in situations where a hand gun wouldn't have worked. so what is the end result? criminals are more efficient murdering people, but it's almost never the case that a person needs an AR. i strongly doubt you can find many real world examples of where an AR was needed over a handgun for defensive use.... but criminal use of AR happens every day.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
i dont know if you missed it, but i posted in one of these threads gun control science. if you do a literature review, locations with more guns correlate to more murder. places that have more gun control, correlate to less murder. the consensus of scientists, if you poll them, is that gun control decreases the murder rate. these are all based on literature reviews... which means that if you look at the trends in science study, the facts are as i state them.
women are more likely to die if her abuser has a gun than if he doesn't. we aren't more likely to get mugged in the usa compared to other countries, but we are more likely to get murderd overall, due to guns, when we do get mugged. police are more likely to die in places with more guns, and less likely to die with less gun control. people who own guns are more likely to murder someone than to use it in self defense.
these are all based on scientific studies. the underlying them on these things, is that the precense of a gun can cause someone to die when they otherwise wouldn't.
if you need me to dig up that info i can, but all you guys ever do is ignore it so i assume you are ignoring it.
i'm giving you literature reviews, and trends in science. all you give are exception examples and anecdotal evidence.
that is the science. here is the common sense,which you again ignore:
you responded to the wrong part of my post... respond to this.
"how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife? " if they go on a rampage with a knife, aren't less people likely to die than if it was a gun?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
see last post, above quote that i argued to you and that you ignored.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.We have had gun rights for all of American history. Why is it we are facing this big problem only up until recently?Maybe it has nothing to do with the guns. Maybe another factor is at play. Mental illness? Weak Law Enforcement? Bad court systems?
this is why the gun debate never goes anywhere. i gave you guys objective science that says the presence of guns causes more murder. you ignore it. i gave you the above point that pinpoints that guns are objectively different than non guns. the guy i addressed it to ignored it, and you went to an unrelated point. why did you bother to quote me if you aren't going to specifically address what i said?
to your point, every other country has the same mental health problems that we do. they dont have the same murder problem. a person in this country isn't more likely to get mugged than in other countries, but they are more likely to get shot in the process when they do get mugged. we have tougher crime regulation than other countries too.
when there's mass knife attacks in other countrires, there are always way less victims than compared to our mass shootings. because guns kill more people than non guns. this isn't rocket science.
how about you actually address what you quoted? isn't a person more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife? aren't they more impulsive when all they have to do is push a button? if i group of men are arguing, isn't it more likely they will attempt to kill the others if they have a gun than a mere knife?
you guys are objectively idiotic on this issue... it's delusional the things you argue, because you can't be persuaded by the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
if someone asks 'what was the cause of death' it is fair to say 'a gun;. a gun caused someone's death. that is, a gun killed someone. beyond this, you are just playing word games and semantics so there's no point continuing this line of argument.
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons. completely void of logic and common sense to make the arguments you guys are making.
banning a spoon wouldn't make a difference in stopping obesisty, cause they will just use other methods to eat. again, there's no comparison between guns and non gun weopons.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
a person is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than a knife. people are impulsive, so the ability to just push a button and the other person dead, is significant. plus, a person can kill others with much greater speed and efficiency.. you are comparing apples and oranges by arguing about non-gun weopons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
it's just a matter of talking that's imprecise. if it's fair to say people kill people, then it's fair to say guns kill people. it would be more accurate to say 'some' people kill people, and 'some' guns kill people. to quibble about the wording is an irrelevant semantic. you say guns dont kill people.... well, some of them do. that's a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if i'm making the general claim that all guns kill people, then you are making the general claim that all people kill people. you are being irrelevant, as usual. actually, sometimes guns kill people, but you'd rather play word games and semantics. when there's a gun murder, the person killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. that's a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
if someone makes person A mad when they are driving and person A has a gun... doesn't it stand to reason that person A is more likely to kill someone if they have a gun than if they dont? if two people are arguing, and someone has a gun, doesn't it stand to reason that someone is more likely to die than if neither had a gun?
and if ya'll want to get stupid about it... gun actually do kill people. the person involved killed someone, the gun did, and the bullet did as well. literally, that's the truth. but ya'll would rather play games than address the real issues.
ya'll are just irrational and idiotic, that's all this boils down to.
Created:
yes, guns are more likely to be used than non-guns. but that doesn't explain why non gun murders are not wildly out of control in the usa. ya'll should just admit, that if your theory that this is just a bad person problem, that non-gun murders should be wildly out of whack too. ya'll should just admit, that the while it's possible your explanation explains the situation, the data goes against your theory.
it's not far fetched to think gun cause people to kill when they otherwise wouldn't... that's all this is getting at. look at two people arguing, and ask if they had a gun whether someone would be more likely to die or not.... of course someone is more likely to die. it's idiotic to suggest otherwise, and to pretend that the presence of so many guns makes no difference in the murder rate.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's a good argument too. both my theory and yours are probably at play, but one would think your theory is more fitting.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
"One thing no one seems to have an answer for though: gun ownership didn’t really get markedly huge until the 1970’s. What caused that large increase?"
my guess is the politicization of the NRA. around the time you mention, the NRA went from nonpolitical, to political, and started feeding propaganda to the population.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
it should be compared to non USA countries. if this is a bad person problem, and not a gun problem.... non gun murders should be at a wildly higher rate in the USA than non USA countries. but what we see is a similar rate to other countries. the only stat that is out of whack in the USA is gun murders, which indicates this is almost surely a gun problem, not just a bad person problem. bad people would be more likely to kill with knives and other weopons too, if this is just a bad person problem.
i mean it's common sense. take any argument between people. consider what would happen in group A that has a gun, and group B that doesn't have a gun. it's idiotic to argue the prescence of a gun makes no difference in an argument. but, folks like to pretend the having guns around makes no difference on the murder rate. absolutely idiotic.
Created:
this thread seems topical. of course, folks will continue to ignore why non-gun murders aren't wildly out of whack, just like gun murders are wildly out of whack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
you may be right... i really dont know. i never considered those verses that talk about 'ceasing' in that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
1 Corinthians
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
9 Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
i mean you can say speaking in tongues isn't for modern man, but the most straightforward interpretation is that the bible would indicate it is. dont you think?
Created:
Posted in:
this guy does a good job arguing how liberal christians are really a religion unto themselves
that is ultimately true, but every conservative chrisitan decides in their own way what is right... they disagree with tens of thousand of different belief structures.
if one posits that maybe the bible isn't the word for word word of God, then it's reasonable to consider alternative views. the guy in the link said liberal christians dont hold the bible to be true, so they cant call themselves christian... but why must the bible be true for Jesus and the religion to be true?
personally, i believe what the bible says unless i have a reason not to. that means i'm actually pretty orthodox. some things dont seem to make sense, but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
christianity is compelling in general. the apostles died for their faith. you dont see that every day. early historians called jesus a magician due to what people said about him. it was considered a fact and it's consensus that Jesus actually existed. read the new testament... it's a very authentic sounding narrative. it's compelling the poetry they speak. other religions dont have that... islam is about getting virgins at death and chopping heads off. buddism is just a philosophy and doesn't claim truth. i dont know much about hindu but it seems very random. christian NDEs with near death experiences are common... other religions are almost non existant. things that look like miraculous healings happen a lot to chrisitans... it's unheard of for atheists or other religions. christianity is about doing good and having good relationships... things science says makes for meaningful life.
my point... christianity is a compelling religion. why does the bible need to be true for the religion to be true?
Created:
i also realize that trump's lawyer plead guilty, but i wonder about the context of that guilty plea... like, did he do it just to negotiate and avoid a witch hunt against him?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
if trump used campaign money to pay the hush money, couldn't the government say that he used campaign funds for a non-election purpose? don't you think that that would have looked way more scandalous? that the government can get him no matter what he does, if they disagree with how to characterize it?
i realize that your point is that he was suppose to report it no matter the purpose, but i guess my only point in response is that that seems like a technicality and trivial. it's like going after bill clinton for lying about an affair and his personal life, except trump didn't even lie.
Created:
trump paid hush money to someone, a porn star, that he had sex with. his critics say that that was a move to influence his presidential campaign, so he should have used campaign funds. this seems like a technicality, something not worth pursuing. plus, i dont know the legal details, but using campaign money to pay a porn star doesn't sound legit. it looks illegal to use campaign funds for non election purposes... so basically trump could have been prosecuted no matter what he did, but the path they're arguing he should have done, looks way more preposterous.
""The idea that a routine private settlement, unconnected to any campaign activity, is a criminal offense because the settlement should have been paid with official campaign funds is the most preposterous, ludicrous, idiotic, indefensible, fraudulent “legal theory” conceivable.
"Under this “theory,” candidates must use federal campaign funds for private, personal or corporate matters—an exact inversion of federal law. Indeed, DOJ prosecutes those who use campaign funds for expressly non-campaign purposes. Of course, the “theory” is all bogus pretext.
"No serious human believes that Manhattan DA’s office believes any of this. They understand this is a purely partisan exercise in vengefully prosecuting a political enemy precisely as is done is repressive third world nations, despotic regimes and marxist authoritarian states."
i can understand rand paul... this is a witch hunt, and if anyone should go to jail, it's the district attorney who brought this case.
thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
i guess there is the point, that jesus said 'forgive them they know not what they do'.... i was focusing on the know not what they do part, but the fact that Jesus asked for them to be forgiven, probably means that they committed a sin, even if they are ignorant. i never looked at it that way.
Created:
i mostly use the atlantic and new york times and PBS. the times have biases in their editorial section, but they are mostly trustworthy. i also like newsweek, time magazine. wall street journal, washington post, the economist. there are a lot more, but these come to top of mind.
when i think of die hard trump supporters, i think of not just fox news, but a lot of random youtube videos and websites that no one's ever heard of. or random memes and hearsay that needs fact checked. i do recognize that there are educated trump supporters who know how to vouch for a source's credibility.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
it's fun watching you fight against all these brainwashed idiots. you may be a little biased yourself, but you are nothing like these guys. i call them trumpanzees and MAGAts. short trump speak for chimpanzees and maggots.
Created:
Posted in:
it's bad at the very least because there is a plausible argument that all abortion is murder.
philosophically, smashing a snowball isn't smashing a snowman. so maybe killing some cells isn't killing a person. but, snowballs dont themselves create snowmen. those early cells do themselves create humans. plus those cells have all the DNA necessary to make a human and they are living cells. they are in fact a human organism, or at the very least an organism.
so there are plausible arguments that it's not murder or wrong, but there's enough basis to call any abortion as immoral due to the uncertainty.
Created:
Posted in:
jesus said 'forgive them father, they know not what they do'
but if you look around on the internet, a lot of people say that a person acting ignorantly can still commit a sin.
i always looked at sinning as 'intentionally doing what you know is wrong'. this involves intention and knowledge, something that resides in one's mind, as an opposite of ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
"AMA lobby will never allow this."
u r probably right. doesnt mean my ideas are bad, or that they can't be done.
just like the zoning lobby in my other thread... special interests are destroying america. and stopping crooked politicians from doing common sense things to stop the damage.
Created:
Posted in:
i suppose keeping healthcare from rising beyond inflation is just one part of it.
i think most people would agree that there should be more competition with hosptials, and start allowing doctor owned hospitals. this would help tremendously.
Created:
Posted in:
the CDC says obesity costs less than two hundred billion a year. you guys are right that it's significant, but it pales in comparison to the trillions we can save just by changing the way we pay for care.
the usa spends 18 percent of its GDP on healthcare. other country spend about ten percent or less. that difference amounts to pushing two trillion a year. it's a fact that the main reason they pay less, is because they regulate costs more whereas we do not. also insurance companies are middlemen who provide little value and much waste. insurance eats up a third of a dollars spent on healthcare, on adminstrative costs, whereas medicare only spends 3 percent on adiministration
did you guys even read my link in my opening post? do you guys ever read or google for actual figures to back up what ya'll say? i think the main issue people are having with my arguments is that they are ignorant and have no desire to change that.
if you want someone credible to back up my arguments, notice that orogami said he agreed with my healthcare proposal.
Created: