And as a result they wait months and years for treatment and surgeries. They die of cancer etc. before they ever get treated
Why is income inequality a bad thing?
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
not the wealthy, at least not in canada
they get the basic package that every poor schmo gets, and then they buy additional coverage on top of that
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
of course it is - conservative Christians have much higher rates of charitable giving than leftists
what jg (and other leftists) never seem to understand is that conservative Christians draw the line at the belief that big government is the best way to provide for the poor and disadvantaged
why?
because they're not retarded
lain: No ... though the whole reason for Trump Care is to make sure those with less finances will be unable for afford treatment in hopes they will decline treatment.
ClimateSanity
New member
Pure nonsense
expos4ever
Well-known member
It may be bad at least in part because (I believe) studies have shown that, whether we like it or not, people become dissatisfied based on relative differences in wealth, not absolute differences.
expos4ever
Well-known member
Can you please provide evidence to support this assertion?
eider
Well-known member
Wrong.....
In 2014 my wife was dying from a very rare illness, 3/1,000,000 chance. Many of these cases are discovered at post-mortem investigation.
An amazing emergency services operator decided to send a para-med rather than an ambulance, the para-med decided to send her to a clinical-decisions unit rather than an accident-emergency hospital. A young doctor in the CD unit guessed her condition accurately (amazingly) and she was raced to Kings College Hospital where a specialist team who deals with just that one condition acted. She was operated upon and a 60mm tumour was removed from upon her right adrenal gland. Critical care nurses watched her in full-focus for two days until she was safe and clear.
Then my Wife's whole family were brought in for tests because this condition is often genetically centred upon relatives.
The cost of that treatment would have exceeded the value of our little home and savings.
In your country she would never have stood a chance.
Phaeo-Chromo-Cytoma
The Berean
Well-known member
What are you talking about? It appears you are reading things that were not in my previous post. Where did I defend wealth? My point was that the early Christians giving help to others in need is nothing like the government doing it. They are completely different things.
Sent from my SM-G920V using TOL mobile app
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
eider
Well-known member
No no...... Let me help you......
Income can depend upon:-
Qualification.
Training.
Experience.
Difficulty.
Risk.
Strength.
Inconvenience.
Danger.
Loneliness.
Investment.
.....on..... and on....
But progressive communities insist on a minimum wage in order to garantee that workers can live up to a reasonable standard. Before long progressive countries will pay everybody a 'living-wage' even if folks are unemployed. This is because IT, robotics and computer-aided systems are making so many people redundant.
eider
Well-known member
Fair enough..... but giving is giving, by any hand or system.
eider
Well-known member
What makes you think that it isn't?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
because we also have:
amazing emergency services operators
para-meds and ambulances
young doctors
etc
and medicare for those who can't afford insurance
The problem is not the existence of a rich minority per se . This has always been the case .
The problem is that in America, we have a tiny handful of superrich people who have collectively possess a staggering amount of money but are hoarding it , and an ever growing number of poor or almost poor people .
The notion that wealthy people will automatically create jobs and be beneficial for a country is a myth . Theoretically this could be the case and sometimes it has been , but the rich are now getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and more and more of the middle class are being helplessly dragged down into poverty .
Being appalled and outraged by this terrible situation in America does not make you a "socialist, Marxist and communist ". Contrary to popular belief, liberals are not opposed to wealth per se or the existence of rich people . They do not want to "soak the rich " (whatever that means ) , and they do not want to turn America into another Soviet Union , where the vast majority were poor and the government controls the entire economy, and only the top members of the communist party live well .
All they want is to make it possible for people to escape poverty ,keep the middle class form becoming poor, make sure there is a secure safety net for those in need , people can get a good education with out having to struggle to pay for it , find good, secure jobs and retire without starving . is this too much to ask for ? And they also want everyone to have access to good medical care . Yes, health care is a right, not a privilege .
But the GOP has been preventing this from happening for decades, because they are greedy bastards and in the pay of the greediest rich people . And Trump is only going to make things worse if he is not stopped soon .
The problem is that in America, we have a tiny handful of superrich people who have collectively possess a staggering amount of money but are hoarding it , and an ever growing number of poor or almost poor people .
The notion that wealthy people will automatically create jobs and be beneficial for a country is a myth . Theoretically this could be the case and sometimes it has been , but the rich are now getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and more and more of the middle class are being helplessly dragged down into poverty .
Being appalled and outraged by this terrible situation in America does not make you a "socialist, Marxist and communist ". Contrary to popular belief, liberals are not opposed to wealth per se or the existence of rich people . They do not want to "soak the rich " (whatever that means ) , and they do not want to turn America into another Soviet Union , where the vast majority were poor and the government controls the entire economy, and only the top members of the communist party live well .
All they want is to make it possible for people to escape poverty ,keep the middle class form becoming poor, make sure there is a secure safety net for those in need , people can get a good education with out having to struggle to pay for it , find good, secure jobs and retire without starving . is this too much to ask for ? And they also want everyone to have access to good medical care . Yes, health care is a right, not a privilege .
But the GOP has been preventing this from happening for decades, because they are greedy bastards and in the pay of the greediest rich people . And Trump is only going to make things worse if he is not stopped soon .
Liberals think the government should be the church.
eider
Well-known member
Excellent!
See how wonderful President Obama was?
History will remember him as a fine humanist, diplomat and leader.
That it will ...
nikolai_42
Well-known member
As one of those conservative Christians, I would point out a few things (apologies if this has already been touched on since I haven't read the entire thread yet):
1. The passage you quote has a context that needs to be borne in mind. What happens immediately after that description you quote from Acts 4? Acts 5 has the story of Ananias and Sapphira who were killed (by God) for their deceitful behavior. The critical verse here is :
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Acts 5:4
The church did, in no way, enforce the (re)distribution of wealth, but they were found giving all they had only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In other words, this was a community of believers - not an economic system in which everyone was taking part. The point is twofold :
i) Participation in this was voluntary. This is comparable (though maybe not an absolutely direct comparison) to charitable organizations in the capitalistic economy. The church was modelling that in its ideal operation. People give, others distribute, no one makes money (thus, non-profit).
ii) To extend that to an economic model for the whole world (as history has shown amply just in the last century or so) is catastrophic as it results in the worst tyranny. Fallen men operating a system meant for regenerate men (I speak as a Christian to other Christians) is just man's way of trying to foist his own idea of utopia upon the rest of the world. It doesn't work. There is no system of itself that is perfect, but when one assumes man is basically good (as socialism/communism does) and proceeds apace - the safeguards that a system which assumes man is basically self-seeking and bad (at heart) includes are done away with and fallen men are given free reign to impose their own will on everyone else. Communism as an ideal (isolated from its Marxist atheistic moorings) is good. Man is not.
The thing that scripture shows from early on is that God establishes the idea of private property. Thou shalt not steal pretty clearly sets that mandate. And as a civil fundamental (how many Communist rulers ever gave all they had for the cause and benefit of their fellow man?) it is foundational and absolutely necessary to prevent chaos - simply because man is selfish.
2. Jesus Himself never endorsed such a thing but made it clear that there would ALWAYS be inequality, and so to try and make into temporal reality that which is only ever shown to be realized after a spiritual transformation (i.e. in saved individuals) is to deny that which Jesus said :
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
Mark 14:7
In context, a woman had spent a huge amount of money on perfume to anoint Jesus' feet with. It was rather extravagant (in a day where the poor were VERY poor) and that was Jesus' response to the disiciples' complaint that the money was wasted when it might be given to the poor. Thinking again of the Acts 4 model, Jesus should have agreed with this - but not only did she not give the money to the disciples, she didn't give it to the poor! She exercised her freedom to do what she wanted to do with what was hers. And John's gospel tells us that it was really Judas Iscariot who complained (John 12:4-5)! Not much has changed. The ones who cry the loudest (in high places, at least) about inequality and giving to the poor are often the ones who have hidden agendas.
3. Finally, I note that this has been attempted in some way in the early 20th century. It was called the social gospel and brought social injustice to the forefront as a primary motivation to preaching the gospel. Problem is, the gospel got all tangled up in physical prosperity and temporal motivation dominated what was supposed to be spiritual (God wants you not to be poor became God wants you to be rich...God wants you to live a life of spiritual victory became God wants you to live a life of temporal success) and now that has become the prosperity gospel on steroids. When men are promised trials and poverty and all that the world can throw at them and the gospel still wins out, those who are saved are not trapped by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh or the pride of life. The social gospel obscured that and we are at the point now where it has become (in some circles) ALL about what you want. In other circles, the gospel has all but shriveled up and social causes have become the main (only) motivation. And those are often the ones promoting some sort of Christian Socialism. And again...I refer you back to my point 1.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Ever notice how socialist promoters today capitalize on envy to perpetuate their cause? You have said that socialism/communism is biblical. Is envy? Paul says covetousness is idolatry...
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Colossians 3:5-10