VoluntaryPrison

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

VoluntaryPrison's Achievements

  1. As I already discussed in my last post, this is exactly what is happening. The medical costs of the uninsured are already being paid by those who do have insurance. So if you are insured, JCDean, have insurance, you're already paying for somebody else. Just like your car insurance pays for uninsured drivers. Government health insurance would actually do what it is you want...make everyone pay for their own health care. Besides, if you don't want to pay for anyone else, just don't pay taxes, and then you can sit in jail and let somebody else pay for your living.
  2. The problem with this kind of logic is that our current system in what you want, and it is spiraling out of control. The two major contributors to the problems associated with health care are uninsured individuals and frivolous malpractice suits. The law prohibits refusal of necessary medical treatment due to lack of payment. So when an uninsured person receives a procedure, it has to be paid for by someone, and the bill is being passed onto the insured (much like the auto insurance industry). The result is that insurance premiums go up, and then more people can't afford insurance, so they stop buying it. Now we have even more uninsured people and fewer insured people to pay their bills. So the premiums have to go up again, etc etc. Malpractice suits have contributed to the problem by encouraging doctors to proscribe tests that may not be necessary. But a missed/incorrect diagnosis can cost millions of dollars to a practice and effectively destroy a physician's career. So physicians now don't take their chances, and order every conceivable test that might have anything to do with the suspected problem. When you add these up over millions of individuals, you get a huge bill. The only way to combat this problem is to offer physicians more protection from lawsuits. People are going to have to accept that medicine really isn't a very good science. It's mostly guess work on the part of the physician. They're usually extremely good guesses, but the human body is so complex with so many interdependencies that the 'text book' case is almost never seen. Now I do agree with the earlier comment about government adding bureaucracy. I wouldn't trust the US government to run a full health care plan. The US government has too much of a history of too many levels of bureaucracy and trying to cut costs. In health care, that means cutting benefits, which is exactly what we don't need. That's why I stated earlier that what's really needed is government health plan that guarantees basic/preventative health care to all Americans. Think of the benefits of something like this. If every American can have regular check ups, most of the health problems that the currently uninsured have will be detected early enough for prevention, and so the mega-expensive procedures/treatments can be avoided, driving down the cost of insurance. I would also advise against a socialist model where every person is assigned a physician. People need to be able to choose their own doctors, and the government insurance plan will pay the money to the practice, still allowing capitalism to prevail. In fact, you'll see more practices open, and they should thrive, because now you have an even larger population receiving regular visits. Because such a model should prevent more severe problems, you might see specialties suffer a little. Such basic coverage could cover things like annual check-ups (including gynecological exams for women), basic dental care (cleanings and perhaps fillings), and emergency care. It could also cover basic maternity (midwives, dulas (spelling) and child birth classes wouldn't be covered). But I'd draw the line there. Prescription plans, vision plans, advanced dental care, and elective procedures would be covered by private insurance plans that individuals could buy into if they chose. In addition, the government basic care would also require deductibles to help defray costs of surgeries (tonsilitis, appendicitis, etc). I do understand that the plan I've outlined (with 5 minutes of thought) isn't perfect. But I think it's where the discussion should be. Some kind of mix of the private with the public health care is probably the solution that will reach the most people effectively. As a side note, two other causes of inflated health care: 1) Longer life span. The human body begins deteriorating when people are in their 30's, and we try to push them into surviving into 80 and 90 years. I've heard physicians state that the body wasn't really built to live past 50-60 years. Health care would be a lot cheaper if we let people dies in their late 60's and 70's instead of obcessively trying to push them to live beyond that. 2) The life of an innovation in health care is nothing like the life of an innovation in consumer products. Consumer products, like the VCR, DVD, telephone, etc have an average life span of 30 years. There's a period in the beginning where it's really expensive because it's new and technology hasn't been refined to make it economically feasible yet, so only the super devoted buy it. Then there's a phase where the technology is refined and it becomes affordable for the majority of the population. In it's last phase, the product will usually be dirt cheap, used mostly by nostalgia, but eventually be tossed aside as obsolete (vinyl records anyone?). In health care, we don't see this. A new innovation is created and patients demand its use before the technology is refined enough to make it affordable. If we'd patiently (no pun intended) wait for the technology to be refined, the devices/techniques would become more affordable, and health care costs would fall.
  3. I would have nothing against a system where the government offers basic services (emergency care, preventative dental, yearly physicals, etc) and a system in place (whether public or private I don't care) that allowed citizens to purchase additional insurance (orthodontic care, prescription plans, eye care, elective medical care, etc). But the US health care system under capitalism is broken, and something more social deserves consideration.
  4. This one is just too much fun to not indulge myself in. As a disclaimer, let me first say this: I am the most arrogant, self-righteous, and judgmental person I know. Just keep that in mind as I say whatever else comes out here. First of all, I can't stand Mormons. In the ward I'm in now, I don't even talk to anyone anymore because I just find them so uninteresting. There are a handful that I like, but not so much that I go out of my way to make friends with them. But the majority of them just plain irritate me, and ironically, the vast majority of mormons that I can't stand do come from Utah. Here are some of the things I can't stand about them, ranked in descending order 5. Celebrating Christmas -- For some reason, Mormons can't get started early enough. When I went to college in Utah, I kept on running into people that insisted that we start singing the Christmas hymns around the time of Halloween. When I suggested that perhaps it was a little early I was looked at like I was Atheist. 4. The Us Against the World Mentality -- I've noticed that a great many mormons think the entire world is pitted against the Church, that we're still mocked and persecuted on a criminal scale. What they don't seem to recognize is that the world reveres us for many of our decisions. 3. I do my calling and nothing else -- I once moved into a new area and the Church didn't operate a scout troop there at the time. So I went out and volunteered in a community based troop. I was met with shock by people because I was working in scouts without having been called by the Bishopric to do it. To look at them, I think some of them truly thought I was insane. 2. "When I was on my mission" -- When I hear these words I automatically stop listening. It doesn't bother me as much when it's said by someone who has only been out of service for a few months, but I hear it all the time from people who have finished their degrees, been married, have several kids, and still, the source of all of their spiritual experiences is their mission. You'd think something spiritual would have happened since they finished, and if not, their mission was pretty much a waste, wasn't it? 1. Education isn't all that important for women -- This is by far the thing I despise most about mormons. I have been criticized to no end for saying that women should get a full education, even when I quote prophets. I have a friend who got her degree at MIT, decided to pursue a master's degree, and while vacationing in Utah was told on more than one occasion that there was no point, "a bachelor's degree is enough isn't it?" My sister-in-law went to BYU, and her stake president talked to the relief society in her ward and said he didn't know what they were doing there, and that they should be more focused on getting married than on getting an education (I wasn't aware that the two were mutually exclusive). So anyway, as I said before, I'm as self-righteous as they come, so try to take this with a little humor. All told, even 'Utah Mormons' aren't all that bad. And I'm done babbling for now. What was the original point of this post anyway?
  5. This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing because eventually somebody does take it as doctrine, or our faulty memories start assigning these statements incorrect value. To further clarify, let me submit the following: The above is from a letter written by the Quorum of the Twelve in July of 1830 and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and George A. Smith. The letter was addressed to "the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to the Churches Scattered Abroad and to All the Saints."
  6. And what do you intend to defend it with? I sure hope you don't intend to defend it with anything other than the scriptures/Conference talks. And if you can defend it with those, what's the point of bringing up what someone else said?
  7. Because bringing up 'something somebody once said' is how we get things like, "the youth were generals in the war in heaven." Passing on such hearsay tends to catalyze the growth of false doctrine (like the three year old trapped by a garage door who had a vision to 'free the birdies'). You teach doctrine from the scriptures.
  8. I forgot to put the reference to the article "Free People of Color." It's in HC 1:377.
  9. I think I'll make reference to a book you may have heard of. It's called History of the Church, and was written by none other than Joseph Smith. When he and others went to Missouri the first time, he wrote in the History the following: You may recall that Shem was the ancestor through whom Abraham (and thus Israel and Joseph) traces his lineage, and Ham being the cursed son of Noah. Ham was the son who marrie Egyptus, and therefore "preserved the curse in the land" (see Abraham 1:21-25). Many assume that this curse means black skin, but the evidence in the Standard Words on that assumption is shaky.A couple years later, Smith had to clarify the Church's position on slavery. His letter on the topic is quite interesting, and I encourage you all to read it in it's entirety. In this letter, Smith stated that the Northern States had no right to try and tell the Southern States that they shouldn't own slaves. He then advises the members of the Church to avoid the conflict, suggesting that slavery would abolish itself in time in a much more peaceful manner than what history records. He then writes the following paragraphs. First, just to be clear, the Church isn't really in favor of slavery, but it appears that the Church was willing to defer to the laws of the nation at the time. In this same letters, Smith states that those proclaiming the Gospel should not deny slave holders the Gospel, but slave holders should be taught that their slaves should be treated with compassion and kindness. If you want to hear more of my thoughts on the Church and slavery, that's an entirely different thread. The other thing of interest in this quote is it attributes the African-American race not to Cain, but to Ham, and Canaan. There was a land of Canaan before the flood, but the scriptures don't definitively tie the Canaanites to Cain. In Moses, however, we do read that, "the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barreness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Moses 7:8). The evidence seems more consistent with black skin being a mark set on the Canaanites for their wickedness as a people than a curse placed on Cain himself. Lastly, Smith stated the the curse of servitude had not been lifted from the descendants of Ham at this time. Part of me wonders if this is not the line used to justify the myth that the Priesthood would not be given to African Americans. However, such interpretation is wrong. I have never come across any statement in the Church records that implies that those of any heritage should be denied the Priesthood when they accept the Gospel. Consider further that slavery was a huge political issue in Missouri. Since the majority of converts to the Church were coming from the North East (abolitionist states), the pro-slavery people in Missouri felt somewhat threatened. When the persecutions started, some leaders in the Church tried to put as much distance between the Church and African Americans as possible in order to alleviate the persecution (to no avail, I might add). Some of their comments have been rejected by the Church, such as one appearing in the Morning and Evening Star, entitled "Free People of Color", stating that African Americans shouldn't be baptized. The comment was corrected in the same paper about a year later. Okay, I suppose that's enough for now. In summing up, according to Smith, the African Americans are descendants of Ham. There is inconclusive evidence that the dark skin came through his wife, Egyptus who was a Canaanite. But the real curse on the race came through Ham's son, Canaan, for Ham's own rebellions. Did I leave any loose ends?
  10. In actuality, the bishop telling your husband that he is unworthy of the sacrament is more of a warning than a command. The Bishop shouldn't do anything to physically prevent his partaking. However, as a 'common judge in Israel' (D&C 107:73-74), he is granted the authority to judge whether someone would partake unworthily and is therefore obligated to warn him against doing so for reasons cited by utcowboy (See 1 Cor. 11:27-30; 3 Nephi 18:28-32; Mormon 9:29). But I wouldn't even go into that much detail with your uncle unless he agrees to look at the issue from an LDS point of view first. The situation looks a lot different from the point of view of one who believes the Church has the priesthood authority than one who rejects that premise. In essence, your uncle may never understand this situation because he doesn't have the necessary beliefs in the Restoration that are the foundation of the Bishop's authority. I know, not very encouraging, but hopefully he'll at least agree to disagree.
  11. This is a frightening thing to me. I see it in many forms including "My Young Men's/Young Women's Leader said" to "My seminary Teacher said" to "My EFY Councilor said" and even what may be most frightening, "My Mission President said." The thing that frightens me about these phrases is that it puts the authority of what follows on some person that I likely don't know and have no idea if I should trust. It also fails to help the person receiving the message know where the doctrine comes from. Sadly, I'm fully guilty of this as well. I have yet to quote a source on these boards, so I guess I'll commit myself to do better. What we all need to do better is when we teach, cite the source of the doctrine. If we learned something from our EFY councilor, we should find the scriptures and talks that back it up. Then, if we want to make the point in the future, we cite the scriptures and not the councilor. So when your kids comes home and says, "my teacher says," challenge him and say, do you know where in the scriptures it teaches that, etc...help him find the answers there, and that will have a much more lasting impact on his long term spiritual growth. As a tangent, I knew a guy who worked at EFY for a little bit. His last piece of advice to his youth before the end of the week was, "You should never start a sentence with the words, my EFY councilor said...' unless it's the sentence, my EFY councilor said I should never start a sentence with the words my EFY councilor said."
  12. I just want to act as a voice of moderation. so far, the best thing I've heard said in this thread is " The law of tithing is not really to be interpreted by anyone but you," and other similar remarks. The only other person who really has the authority to judge if your interpretation is correct (meaning appropriate to your situation) is the Bishop (although any person conducting a temple recommend interview may be required to judge the truthfulness of your claim to be a full tithe payer). If you're unsure about how you should pay (or not pay) tithing in your situation, you should talk to the Bishop, and your home teachers should tell you that.
  13. I miss Church once a month to go camping with a community boy scout troop. I informed the bishop up front that this would be the case when I first signed on with the troop. I've gotten a few sideways looks from some people, but the majority of the people respond with admiration. Ironically, the people that think I'm living in wickedness for camping with boy scouts on Sundays are the same ones who look extremely confused that I would join a scout troop without a calling.
  14. Elder Bednar did a question and answer session when he came to our Stake Conference and someone asked him this very question. Elder Bednar's response was essentially, "It depends." The gist of his comment was that there will be some days when your calling takes precedence, some days when your family takes precedence, and some days when your work might take precedence. There is no way you can keep them all in complete 100% balance all of the time. It's up to you to decide which one takes precedence at any given moment.
  15. Essentially, this is all one very big and eternal pyramid scheme, and we're on the bottom. Sucks to be us doesn't it.