A brits view on Trump

[Vort]

12 hours ago, HaggisShuu said:

So, if I concede, that healthcare is not a human right and alter my position. "Free healthcare is a moral good." Will it help lead to a less contentious resolution?

I apologize for any contention I have generated. Such was never my intent. 

Yes, "free healthcare is a moral good" is a fundamentally different (and, imo, much more defensible) position than "healthcare is a human right." I would point out the obvious, though, in that there is no such thing as "free" healthcare, only healthcare someone else pays for.

[estradling75]

I have always been interested in "Doing the right thing"   As I have gotten older and more experienced I have come to realize it is not enough to "Do the right thing"  but the "Right thing" has to also be done the "Right way" or it becomes the "Wrong thing" This was a kind of paradox that took me awhile to wrap my head around. 

So when people so when people come with various problems that need to be address.. the debate usually centers on "How to address the problem" not that we need to address the problem.  The contention usually comes in when people start accusing others of not caring about the problem which is a strawman.

When it comes to Health Care it is never free unless you are enslaving Health Care providers.  Without that someone has to pay.  And that kicks in a variation on the Golden Rule which is.... They who have the Gold make the rules.  In the case of Government paid for Health Care the money is coming from taxes filtering through the Government red tape of Government Made Rules.  Frankly the Government has never been very good at managing anything.

And here in America if you told people that there Health Care was under control of President Trump half the nation would have a collected meltdown.  And just a short time ago it would have been under Biden which would have melted down the other half of the nation.

So while we can all agree that making sure the elderly are taken care of in their end of life care is "The Right thing to do"  We are not going to agree that the Government is the "Right way" to accomplish that goal

[zil2]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When it comes to Health Care it is never free unless you are enslaving Health Care providers.  Without that someone has to pay.

I'm not trying to pick nits, but I think it's crucial that we confront the truth.  Slavery does indeed have a cost  - not just the moral cost of slavery, not just the cost to those enslaved, but slaves have to be fed, housed, clothed, given healthcare (oh the irony).  What's more, for something as mentally and physically demanding as healthcare, the "slave" will need more than the basics.  And someone is going to have to pay for all that.

It's interesting to me that the Church can amass a whole lot of money off people voluntarily giving them 10% of their income / interest / increase / excess¹ (depending on who you ask), and practicing good stewardship.  This cannot be done with government because government investing in the stock market is 100% guaranteed to produce complaints and corruption overnight, even if done through a so-called "blind trust".  And this is why government should get out of everything other than the bare minimum and leave hospitals and such to both for-profit and charitable organizations, and why those organizations should be heavily audited by outside firms, and why those running the organizations should also be subject to careful scrutiny and easy removal from their position.

But the world, by definition, is incapable of operating like the Church, so we're all screwed until Christ comes again.  Welcome to mortality.  Happy Sunday!

¹I was shocked to learn that there's a popular idea out there, based on some of the D&C bits about the United Order, that one tithes on whatever is left after one has paid for their necessities (taxes, food, clothing, housing, transportation), but not their "fun stuff" (like a television and video games).  It is obvious to me that this is not what was intended in the United Order and it's not what is intended now, but the proponents are absolutely certain they've got it right.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

¹I was shocked to learn that there's a popular idea out there, based on some of the D&C bits about the United Order, that one tithes on whatever is left after one has paid for their necessities (taxes, food, clothing, housing, transportation), but not their "fun stuff" (like a television and video games).  It is obvious to me that this is not what was intended in the United Order and it's not what is intended now, but the proponents are absolutely certain they've got it right.

When people view tithing the same as they view a tax obligation, you're 100% sure to have this kind of thing going on.

[HaggisShuu]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

I was shocked to learn that there's a popular idea out there, based on some of the D&C bits about the United Order, that one tithes on whatever is left after one has paid for their necessities (taxes, food, clothing, housing, transportation), but not their "fun stuff" (like a television and video games).  It is obvious to me that this is not what was intended in the United Order and it's not what is intended now, but the proponents are absolutely certain they've got it right.

I feel like Matthew 6 debunks this world view.

Quote

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Paying after tax I can understand. But food transport/everything else, it's essentially tithing whatever is left, it is not seeking first the kingdom of God, it's an afterthought. 

Edited March 9 by HaggisShuu

[zil2]

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

I feel like Matthew 6 debunks this world view.

While I haven't heard them (the alternate tithe definers) say the following, I have heard others say it: "That counsel was for the 12 apostles, not for the ordinary membership. Therefore, it doesn't apply to me."  (Sometimes the second sentence was implied rather than spoken.)

1 hour ago, HaggisShuu said:

Paying after tax I can understand.

And I can easily argue that you cannot pay tax on or from money you never earned.  If it was yours, then it was yours.  And I could then mention the concept of "firstfuits" or "firstlings"....  Thankfully, I'm not a bishop.  I also don't live someplace where people are taxed 90% of their income such that 10% of their gross would leave them with nothing.  I'll leave such puzzles to those with keys.

I have come to prefer not knowing how other people view tithing or the Word of Wisdom.  Ignorance is bliss and avoids the temptation to judge unrighteously.

Edited March 9 by zil2

[Traveler]

There are issues with “free” health care that I never see addressed.  The main issue is what to do about individuals that deliberately seek and choose unhealthy behaviors that directly affect their health adversely?  The two greatest health issues in the USA are the result of sedate lifestyles of minimal physical activity and obesity.  And yet, at the same time, the two most “prescribed” institutionalized health care provided are drugs and surgery.  If one does not take responsibility for their own health, all the charity (government or otherwise), all medical help (drugs, surgery, advice or whatever) becomes useless and wasted.

I also believe that there is a great misunderstanding about the United Order being somewhat like socialism.  Both ancient and modern scripture condemn idleness and teach that those that are idle are not to be care for.  See Doctrine and Covenants 42:42. For any individual to be free and enjoy liberty – they must first be responsible.  There obviously are exceptions, which boils down to the very young, the very old and the very incapable.   Not even G-d is merciful towards the deliberately irresponsible.  In all of societies the worse applications of mercy are those that preside over the societies of the world and dictate how mercy and compassion is metered out.  Nether mercy nor compassion can be forced by any means, because the moment it is, mercy become unmerciful, and compassion becomes uncompassionate.

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

When it comes to implementing socialized or universal health care, a major stumbling block exists in the form of the US military and US Veteran's Administration health care systems, both of which are run by the US government. 

The US military health care system is very erratic and inconsistent in terms of quality, to the point that a great many people - like myself - have been victims of malpractice. Making matters worse is that for a very long time those of us who were victims were falsely told that because the military was part of the government it was illegal for us to sue. Even active duty military do not always get the best care, such that at one time the name-brand painkiller Motrin was nicknamed "Ranger Candy" for how often care providers would just tell service members (especially in the Army) to go have some Motrin and get over themselves in response to various medical complaints. 

The Veteran's Administration system, meanwhile, was rocked by a massive scandal some years ago in which it was found that due to a lack of capacity to meet demand they kept deliberately postponing and rescheduling meetings and appointments for weeks or months at a time, to the point that a number of veterans died waiting for care. 

These two systems are metaphorical bloody shirts that can be waved around as "proof" that the government can't be trusted to run health care, and so until they undergo needed reforms and the capacity increases accordingly they'll continue to be used as arguments against socialized or universal health care. 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Ironhold said:

When it comes to implementing socialized or universal health care, a major stumbling block exists in the form of the US military and US Veteran's Administration health care systems, both of which are run by the US government. 

The US military health care system is very erratic and inconsistent in terms of quality, to the point that a great many people - like myself - have been victims of malpractice. Making matters worse is that for a very long time those of us who were victims were falsely told that because the military was part of the government it was illegal for us to sue. Even active duty military do not always get the best care, such that at one time the name-brand painkiller Motrin was nicknamed "Ranger Candy" for how often care providers would just tell service members (especially in the Army) to go have some Motrin and get over themselves in response to various medical complaints. 

The Veteran's Administration system, meanwhile, was rocked by a massive scandal some years ago in which it was found that due to a lack of capacity to meet demand they kept deliberately postponing and rescheduling meetings and appointments for weeks or months at a time, to the point that a number of veterans died waiting for care. 

These two systems are metaphorical bloody shirts that can be waved around as "proof" that the government can't be trusted to run health care, and so until they undergo needed reforms and the capacity increases accordingly they'll continue to be used as arguments against socialized or universal health care. 

I remain convinced that the best possibility for improving health care is legally to treat it (specifically financially and service availability) as a public utility.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, Ironhold said:

These two systems are metaphorical bloody shirts that can be waved around as "proof" that the government can't be trusted to run health care, and so until they undergo needed reforms and the capacity increases accordingly they'll continue to be used as arguments against socialized or universal health care. 

Here's the bottom line:  We can have two out of three. 

• Universal Healthcare
• Affordable Healthcare
• Quality Healthcare.

Pick which two you want, and be willing to do without the third. There is no system in the world which can offer all three for any extended period of time without causing the economic structure to go bankrupt.

[Carborendum]

On 3/8/2025 at 1:27 AM, HaggisShuu said:

Legally, what I am entitled to, and what you are entitled to, are not the same, which has lead to culturally different world views. It is therefore not productive, to try and convince each other otherwise. In the context of healthcare. 

On 3/8/2025 at 1:29 AM, HaggisShuu said:

Well I find that barbaric. 

Here is something more barbaric.

If I have a failing kidney, you should have no right to withhold your kidney from me.  I should be able to kidnap you, sedate you, and surgically remove your kidney to save my life.

After you get over the shock effect (which is what you were doing with your example of your family having to die because they can't afford it) please understand that it really goes back to the original statement of "socialist mindset."

• The socialist mindset says "if there is a problem, go to the government first."
• The capitalist mindset says "if there is a problem, do what you can first.  Then family, then friends, then communities (like a church or other social group).  These were the things that Burke called "little platoons."
• And often, the long-term solution was to have corporations and individuals innovate their way to a more affordable solution.  This is the big batallions.
• Only after all else is exhausted, do we turn to government.

Socialist mindset/Capitalist mindset:

"But a kidney isn't money!"  No, it is not.  But what is money?  It is "stored labor."  Which is more important? My body? or my labor?  Do you have a right to steal my labor any more than you have a right to steal my kidney?  Theft is theft.

In fact, as has been said before: If you steal my labor in this manner, I've become your slave.  Is that right?  Do you have a right to enslave me because you need to pay for your healthcare?

Edited March 10 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

On 3/9/2025 at 8:53 AM, zil2 said:

I was shocked to learn that there's a popular idea out there, based on some of the D&C bits about the United Order, that one tithes on whatever is left after one has paid for their necessities (taxes, food, clothing, housing, transportation), but not their "fun stuff" (like a television and video games).  It is obvious to me that this is not what was intended in the United Order and it's not what is intended now, but the proponents are absolutely certain they've got it right.

There is the "right way to do things."  And there is what people have difficulty doing because of difficult situations.  e.g.: Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread because he was starving.

To such a situation, I say 

• It was still wrong for him to steal that bread.
• The circumstances make it more forgivable in the grand scheme.

When I talk to some people who are REALLy poor.  I tend not to hold it against them if they withhold tithing.  Should they withhold?  Absolutely not.  But I can understand them doing so. 

I also have a lot of respect for that person who gives that honest tithe of $2/month (widow's mite).  I also find it wonderful to think that some people give a "generous" fast offering of $1 /month.

This is why I tend to get flustered when I KNOW that this particular family spends $1000 on Christmas presents and have a few major expenses per year (like an ATV) and yet believe they can't afford to tithe.

Edited March 10 by Carborendum

[HaggisShuu]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There is the "right way to do things."  And there is what people have difficulty doing because of difficult situations.  e.g.: Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread because he was starving.

To such a situation, I say 

• It was still wrong for him to steal that bread.
• The circumstances make it more forgivable in the grand scheme.

When I talk to some people who are REALLy poor.  I tend not to hold it against them if they withhold tithing.  Should they withhold?  Absolutely not.  But I can understand them doing so. 

I also have a lot of respect for that person who gives that honest tithe of $2/month (widow's mite).  I also find it wonderful to think that some people give a "generous" fast offering of $1 /month.

This is why I tend to get flustered when I KNOW that this particular family spends $1000 on Christmas presents and have a few major expenses per year (like an ATV) and yet believe they can't afford to tithe.

There is a story that goes round in my ward from time to time. When my wife's grandfather was Bishop a sister approached him who felt she couldn't afford tithing. 
Together they struck a deal, she would pay an honest tithe, and he would give her the exact amount she had paid as a church welfare payment. This way, she is still honouring the commandment, and it gave her a bit of flexibility to organise her finances. After only 2 months, the sister decided she didn't need the welfare anymore, and was able to keep paying tithing. 
 

I can't see such an offer being extended to the family you've mentioned unfortunately 😬

[Backroads]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

There is the "right way to do things."  And there is what people have difficulty doing because of difficult situations.  e.g.: Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread because he was starving.

To such a situation, I say 

• It was still wrong for him to steal that bread.
• The circumstances make it more forgivable in the grand scheme.

When I talk to some people who are REALLy poor.  I tend not to hold it against them if they withhold tithing.  Should they withhold?  Absolutely not.  But I can understand them doing so. 

I also have a lot of respect for that person who gives that honest tithe of $2/month (widow's mite).  I also find it wonderful to think that some people give a "generous" fast offering of $1 /month.

This is why I tend to get flustered when I KNOW that this particular family spends $1000 on Christmas presents and have a few major expenses per year (like an ATV) and yet believe they can't afford to tithe.

I knew a person who kind of did make some tithing calculation adjustments. There was so much being taken out of their paycheck for this and that (can't remember the details, it was a highly unusual case) that the money for tithing-on-the-gross literally wasn't there, that calculation being more than the paycheck.

So I generally don't grudge one's tithing calculations. I find it silly to nickel and dime it. But that goes for all sides of the spectrum.

[Carborendum]

26 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I knew a person who kind of did make some tithing calculation adjustments. There was so much being taken out of their paycheck for this and that (can't remember the details, it was a highly unusual case) that the money for tithing-on-the-gross literally wasn't there, that calculation being more than the paycheck.

So I generally don't grudge one's tithing calculations. I find it silly to nickel and dime it. But that goes for all sides of the spectrum.

Something about that doesn't add up. 

Did he run his own business?
Did he make minimum wage while paying for medical benefits?
Wage garnishment?

Edited March 11 by Carborendum

[Backroads]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Something about that doesn't add up. 

Did he run his own business?
Did he make minimum wage while paying for medical benefits?
Wage garnishment?

If I recall correctly, it was the last two plus something else entirely. There was definitely a hole that had been dug earlier in life. I mostly recall thinking "yikes". 

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, Backroads said:

If I recall correctly, it was the last two plus something else entirely. There was definitely a hole that had been dug earlier in life. I mostly recall thinking "yikes". 

Yikes, indeed.

[SilentOne]

This seems like a  reasonably reasonable thread for this

 

[Traveler]

As I have posted previously, I am not a fan of either the republican or democratic party.  I am concerned that there are elements of deep corruption and secret combinations eating away like termites at our foundations of freedom and liberty.  There was hope that an outsider, like Ragan and now Trump could right the ship.  For example, Ragan discovered 3 primary reasons the Social Security was going broke – but it never got fixed.

I realize that it is early in the second term of Trump, but I am seeing what I believe to be a beginning of an end.  There is so much corruption and waste.  In addition, there is the military industrial complex.  Perhaps the Achilles heel of fixing everything is the insistence that Trump is the only one that can do (and here you can fill in the blank).

Perhaps the chink in the armer is twofold, Hamas in Gaza and the Russia Ukraine war.  It will take some time – but that time is starting to run out.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In addition, there is the military industrial complex

Complete agreement there. That’ll be the death of us. Eventually the beast will turn on her own citizens.