One in a Billion? Perhaps it's a little more. Religion and Healthcare

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
One in a Billion? Perhaps it's a little more. Religion and Healthcare

 Somebody, perhaps The Twelve, was claiming the other day that perhaps one in a billion theists eschew medical care in favor of prayer.  It appears that his estimate is a bit off.  Apparently, enough people object to healthcare on religious grounds that it's becoming a bit of an issue in healthcare reform talks.

Quote:
The Church of Christ, Scientist does not require its members to forgo medical treatment but promotes prayer as a route to healing, a philosophy rooted in the healing ministries ofJesus Christ.

 

Quote:
Legal scholar Marci Hamilton has no problem with adults declining medical treatment for religious reasons, but she worries some of the proposed language could let parents to opt out of health coverage for their children.

"That's another reason they may not take the children to the hospital when they become very ill," said Hamilton, an expert in law and religion at Cardozo School of Law, a nondenominational affiliate of Yeshiva University. "The federal government should not be in the business of providing incentives for parents not to treat children."

In an attempt to get some idea of just how many people believe this sort of thing, we can look at the following statistic:

Quote:
In Massachusetts, which has included a religious exemption in its experiment with near universal health coverage, fewer than 10,000 tax filers claimed it in 2007, according to the most recent information from the state Department of Revenue.

 Ok... this article says fewer than ten thousand, but damn, folks!  That's NEARLY TEN THOUSAND people in one state who are publicly stating that they believe prayer is more effective than medicine!  Do they all believe it fervently?  Maybe, maybe not.  Are some of them politically motivated?  I bet so.  The article goes on to say that this church wants to be able to be included in any healthcare reform.  In a nutshell, They want to get paid by the government to pray for people and call it medicine!

Before we jump on the political bandwagon, though, we need to realize that if these politically savvy religious wackos are going to get government money for praying, they need something... 

PATIENTS

In other words, somebody needs to believe their shenanigans are effective, or they're not going to get any customers.  Apparently, even if this is a political move, the religious leaders believe a sufficient number of people believe in the power of prayer, and would be willing to submit insurance claims to that effect.

Quote:
In the Senate Finance Committee, a similar amendment was introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but didn't come up for a vote. The concept is included in another Senate bill, according to a Kerry spokeswoman.

The devil is in the details, according to the nonpartisan Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is watching the permutations closely. Some of the proposals are dangerously broad, legislative director Aaron Schuham said.

"The biggest concern would be situations where the government is basically reimbursing people to engage in prayer services," he said.

 

 Yes, folks.  There are a lot of people who believe in prayer, and it changes the way they interact with the universe.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

80's no - 90's sure. We had a surplus in the 90s (did you forget about the best Republican president the country ever had - Bill Clinton?)

Well in '92, he had to promise people 'something for nothing' liberalism. Then he had to get reelected in 96, so he needed a good economy, so he stabbed the liberals in the back. Just a typical politician.

jcgadfly wrote:

Improving the productivity of the poor? How in the hell does taking jobs out of this country accomplish that?

How do we keep high paying jobs here unless the workers are highly productive and capitalists are encouraged not punished for starting new businesses?

1. How did Clinton's stabbing the liberals in the back work out so well for the economy? Why didn't it work when Reagan and Poppy Bush were doing the same thing?

2. You just hit on the problem of trickle-down. The capitalists didn't start new businesses with the money they got from the tax cuts. They kept it in their pockets. Worker productivity has been on the rise for years - why not wages?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Are you

ClockCat wrote:

Are you afraid to discuss reaganomics on it's own merits? Or is it that you are unable to, and that is why you seek to find quotes from proponents of it? 

I've argued my point many times, all people do is insult me and use the 'argument from consensus' fallacy against me.

People need an incentive to invest, to start or expend their businesses, to study a profession, to invent new technologies that improve productivity. This can only happen if taxes especially income taxes are kept low. A pay as you go system is the only economic system that is sustainable.

People can not be encouraged to remain on welfare or in a minimum wage job, otherwise these problems only grow over time. If the government sets prices and wages, it only makes the supply problems worse over time.

The main problem with traditional capitalism is that it allows ownership and monopolization of natural resources which discourages efficient use and allows the rich to get richer and the have-nots get poorer. If you want to have a fair economic system, fix this problem. Also, the right to breed must be limited.

If you want to call this "Reganomics", go ahead. But where is the evidence that I'm wrong?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm still waiting for you to

I'm still waiting for you to use an appeal to consensus argument. Supply side economics does not have a consensus agreeing it works.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Are you afraid to discuss reaganomics on it's own merits? Or is it that you are unable to, and that is why you seek to find quotes from proponents of it? 

I've argued my point many times, all people do is insult me and use the 'argument from consensus' fallacy against me.

People need an incentive to invest, to start or expend their businesses, to study a profession, to invent new technologies that improve productivity. This can only happen if taxes especially income taxes are kept low. A pay as you go system is the only economic system that is sustainable.

People can not be encouraged to remain on welfare or in a minimum wage job, otherwise these problems only grow over time. If the government sets prices and wages, it only makes the supply problems worse over time.

The main problem with traditional capitalism is that it allows ownership and monopolization of natural resources which discourages efficient use and allows the rich to get richer and the have-nots get poorer. If you want to have a fair economic system, fix this problem. Also, the right to breed must be limited.

If you want to call this "Reganomics", go ahead. But where is the evidence that I'm wrong?

 

 

Wow. You don't address the points I've made. Any of them. Good job on that. You also conveniently ignored that reaganomics disproved itself with it's own use of the laffer curve. 

 

Let us try this again, shall we?

 

ClockCat wrote:

"supply side economics", the idea that by cutting taxes it increases tax revenue by allowing companies and individuals to spend more, is quite simply a lie. The laffer curve quoted by people that believe in this, even shows the lie, as the nation is permanently to the left of the curve no matter what is done short of taxing 90% capital gains and labor income.

 

It functions as the pareto principle says it would. That is, it never accomplishes what it claims it does. "Trickle down" is a lie. Any beginning student in economics knows this. What it does is starve the government of funding, creating more national debt while redistributing the wealth.

 

Okay, now is your chance. Go for it. Make an argument for reaganomics. Please.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I'm still

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to use an appeal to consensus argument. Supply side economics does not have a consensus agreeing it works.

I never claimed it did. I know it is controversial. I don't fully agree with the Reaganomics view of economics because it leads to monopolies. I only quoted a supporter of it to dispute CC's claim that anyone that studied Econ 101 doesn't support it. There are pleanty of conservative economist that support low taxes and deregulation as opposed to a planned economy.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Okay, now is

ClockCat wrote:

Okay, now is your chance. Go for it. Make an argument for reaganomics. Please.

 

When did I ever say I was a supporter of it? I laid out my position and why I think alternatives will fail to bring prosperity to the masses. But all you do is insult. Zero evidence to support your position.

How are high taxes and regulation, massive welfare and minimum wage entitlements, wealth redistribution and protectionism going to bring sustainable prosperity to the masses? Simple question, defend your position or dodge it.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Okay, now is your chance. Go for it. Make an argument for reaganomics. Please.

 

 

When did I ever say I was a supporter of it? I laid out my position and why I think alternatives will fail to bring prosperity to the masses. But all you do is insult. Zero evidence to support your position.

How are high taxes and regulation, massive welfare and minimum wage entitlements, wealth redistribution and protectionism going to bring sustainable prosperity to the masses? Simple question, defend your position or dodge it.

 

Apparently all you can do is throw red herrings, because you avoid answering any point I've made. I suppose parroting rhetoric must be easier for you than discussing the points that prove supply side economics never stood a chance of doing what the proponents of it claimed it would.

 

If you ever feel like actually discussing the fundamentals to the idea of supply side economics, and why it disproves itself, let me know.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: If you ever

ClockCat wrote:

 

If you ever feel like actually discussing the fundamentals to the idea of supply side economics, and why it disproves itself, let me know.

I not a strict supply-sider. I'm against using wealth to monopolize resources.

What is your economic theory on what will produce sustainable prosperity for a large percentage of the population?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

If you ever feel like actually discussing the fundamentals to the idea of supply side economics, and why it disproves itself, let me know.

I not a strict supply-sider. I'm against using wealth to monopolize resources.

What is your economic theory on what will produce sustainable prosperity for a large percentage of the population?

 

 

My personal belief? Or a list of valid economic theories that could be applied?

There are a number of schools of theory regarding economics, especially macroeconomics. I was simply pointing out that supply side exists in none of them. It is not a valid theory of economics, and never has been.

It quite simply disproves itself in an attempt to prove itself. Not only that, it disproves itself in action. It claims that you will gain more in total taxes, by reducing tax rates. It attempts to prove this using laffer's curve, but his own curve shows that the united states economy has been, and continues to be to the left of it. The only way you could, according to the curve that proponents claim it is founded on, gain more funding in the government, is by increasing taxes. So in an attempt to prove reduction of taxes increases total taxed amount, he proved the opposite. All it does is shove a burden of debt onto the entire population, creating a form of flat tax. It is wealth redistribution. There is no "trickle down". There never has been. You can't find it in any economics book at a real university because it doesn't exist. 

 

That is what I am pointing out. It is rhetoric, and unfounded. It is comparable to creationism. You will hear about it in a political science class, but not in an economics class.

 

Even if you disproved one of the valid economic theories, it wouldn't make reaganomics valid. That is why I am saying that everything has to be judged by it's own merits.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:I'm

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to use an appeal to consensus argument. Supply side economics does not have a consensus agreeing it works.

I never claimed it did. I know it is controversial. I don't fully agree with the Reaganomics view of economics because it leads to monopolies. I only quoted a supporter of it to dispute CC's claim that anyone that studied Econ 101 doesn't support it. There are pleanty of conservative economist that support low taxes and deregulation as opposed to a planned economy.

Some corporate tax rates are less than zero - how low would you like to go?

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1249465620080812

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 By the way, in case you did not know "trickle down" was formerly known as horse and sparrow theory. It isn't new. It gets renamed time after time and every time follows the pareto principle, redistributing wealth accordingly.

 

It has no empirical data supporting it, despite having been applied many times over hundreds of years.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Some

jcgadfly wrote:

Some corporate tax rates are less than zero - how low would you like to go?

And some are 39%, plus you pay 8.8% in California. Plus the shareholders capital gains and income tax on dividends. The problem is the political system where the politically connected can pay little.

The main problem is there is a complete disconnect from the services and benefits a corporation or individual receives and the taxes they pay. You pay based on how successful you are not on the services you use and the natural resources you use. It disincentives success and encourages waste. We don't need a health care system that continues this practice.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Some corporate tax rates are less than zero - how low would you like to go?

And some are 39%, plus you pay 8.8% in California. Plus the shareholders capital gains and income tax on dividends. The problem is the political system where the politically connected can pay little.

The main problem is there is a complete disconnect from the services and benefits a corporation or individual receives and the taxes they pay. You pay based on how successful you are not on the services you use and the natural resources you use. It disincentives success and encourages waste. We don't need a health care system that continues this practice.

And every corporation needs to be thankful for that - if they paid taxes on what they actually used, the rates would border on predatory.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin