We WILL find out how it works

Posted by Boborobdos 10 years, 5 months ago to Government
555 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Vermont decided to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.

The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.

For details: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/vermont-m...


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 12.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ahhhhh yes, the old "believe and you shall see."

    I "believe" it when I see it. Show me your god, not a big foot foot print in the woods.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually "red" can be agreed upon to be a particular frequency of light. It is the same frequency regardless of the perception. What I would like to see is Fred's god in any frequency. So far he is invisible. If I were walking down the street talking to an invisible something, like Harvey maybe, I'd be questioned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. You're wrong. You can measure the wavelength of light to determine what color it is. If you perceived red as green, you would call it red to be able to communicate what you see to other people, but it would look like red to most everyone else. Red is consistent. You can't call it something else and expect any one to understand you.

    You are saying that words mean anything you want them to mean. Which yeah sure, that's true. But no one is going to understand what you are saying. That's exactly what you are doing in your previous argument. redefining words to whatever makes your point valid.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • airfredd22 replied 10 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Red is not objective, it is a "label" that we agree on. You can't make a blind person understand what the color red really is. you can point at objects and tell the blind man what color they are but that's as far as his understanding will go. But as to Rand's definition of faith, she was entitled to any definition she wants, we each have our own based on our life experiences. It is not like defining the word door and being able to define it by its purpose and its normal location and function.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Fred,
    red has an objective definition. the label "red" is arbitrary, but we do have to agree on the label. THat's language. but just because someone is color blind, does not mean "red" does not exist. As we gain more knowledge, we can more exactly define what red means. ie. it's wave length, heat temp related to a black body...but all of this is based on an objective reality. verifiable. not subjective beliefs. I want to point out that in common language the word "faith" can be confused with "confidence." This is not what Rand meant when discussing "Faith."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, Fred, that's probably the best example of circular "reasoning" I've ever heard. Good Job.

    Believing is when you know something but can't prove it, and knowledge comes from believing what you believe to be true.

    Just Wow, but what the hey, so many agree with you, and consensus = truth, right?

    LOL
    Reply | Permalink  
    • khalling replied 10 years, 5 months ago
    • airfredd22 replied 10 years, 5 months ago
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A misunderstanding on your part. When Christians use the term believe, or at least when I do it is usedas knowing but not able to prove it. To me faith comes from knowledge of what I believe to be true.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    and if "not taken literally," ... um... what? LOL.
    What an interesting confluence of concepts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You confuse "knowledge" with "belief" and in that way, you lose the "argument" with Bob.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BuffyT 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If God doesn't exist who was it that appeared to me with my father right after he died? He appeared to me as blinding white light, and several other heavenly beings were with him. I was wide awake, sober, etc. He spoke to me three days later, he said to me "Your daddy's going on now" It was his voice, I said WHAT??? I was surprised of course... He repeated "Your Daddy's going on now" And I didn't see or hear him again after that, except in a dream one night.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And it's still a FACT, Fred, that if the Christian bible is taken literally even virginity isn't a way to prevent pregnancy.

    May I remind you of that girl Mary who got knocked up by a much older guy? If Joe hadn't been such a good guy what might have happened?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by airfredd22 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Boborobdos

    Great points, there's only one problem with your points. I defy you to find one statement I made insisting that i as a Christian am right and you as an atheist are wrong. Nor have made any attempt to "convert" you to anything and in my opinion to each his own. If a person wants to hear about Christianity or any other religion, I'm always willing to discuss the matter as I have with you. This conversation started not because I insisted on the validity of Christianity or any other religion, It was your insistence on the lack of existence of a God that started the conversation. My best wishes to you in your persuits.

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why? Because I don't put up with others pushing their beliefs upon me and others?

    ROFL... Simple though. You don't get to define me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago
    What about the AMA?

    BTW, isn't that a doctor's union?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you mean stuff like this Published on October 25, 2013 at 1:18 AM: "Cancer Research UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) are together committing -35 million for five years to four separate cancer imaging centres across the country, helping to cement the UK's position as a world leader in cancer imaging research. The new initiative builds on the -50 million initial investment in October 2008."

    That's from: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2013102...

    Let's go for something TODAY...: "
    December 6, 2013 by J-Wire Staff

    Read on for article

    The development of ground breaking communications systems for the next generation of computers is the goal of research collaboration between the University of Sydney and Technion – Israel Institute of Technology…with financial backing from the NSW Government.



    The project was launched yesterday by the NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research, Jillian Skinner MP, and the Technion’s Chairman of the Board of Governors, Lawrence Jackier at an official event at the University of Sydney."

    http://www.jwire.com.au/news/technion-an...

    Stem Cell research in the Philippines.
    Research on pot in Israel.

    Holey crap Bat Man, some of the most advanced research in the world has been illegal in America for political and religious reasons.

    Do you really want to claim that America is the most advanced in the world? All because people make money at it?

    In fact patent pharmaceuticals in America have kicked prescription prices to among the highest in the world. Others around the world can more easily get them because they are government subsidized, so even when we are best in developing something many Americans just won't be participating because of the right wing politics.


    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please note that one of the benefits for foreign nations is that *many* of the previously developed medical breakthroughs came about at great expense here and those other nations have benefited without the expense. Capitalist systems promote greater innovation. In recent years the government drifting further from true capitalism and creating bureaucratic road blocks has made it more difficult. socialized medicine will only hinder this process further. Also the WHO numbers regarding mortality include traffic fatalities which have nothing to do with health care...
    http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-the...
    There, have I made a point?
    I believe we will have to agree to disagree.
    Like your heading... We will see.
    I think we are done now.
    Thank you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please note that rather than present anything specific...

    As it usually is with those who don't really have a point.

    Show us another specific standard than WHO uses and why that should be adopted instead. Meanwhile universal health care sure looks like it's working in lots of places and it's much less expensive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    http://www.cato.org/publications/briefin......

    Claim: "They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance."

    But it's an empty claim. Nothing to back it up. Just political screeching.

    I looked at a couple of others and they appear to be little but political diatribes trying to discredit WHO with vague claims rather than offering any real evidence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It demonstrates your hypocrisy that you would try to dismiss a point from what you might call the "left" but let someone from the right skate. Just pointing out the double standard.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • ObjectiveAnalyst replied 10 years, 5 months ago

  • Comment hidden. Undo