I would like to do a piece on my blog, Releasing Religion, regarding mixing God & government.  And I'd like to know what opinions people have here about doing such a thing.  Some points to mention are:

Glenn Beck is well known for arguing that we have misunderstood that founding fathers & their desire to keep church & state separate.  Holding his rally on 8/28, he gathered 150.000 people to hear him talk about bringing out country "back to God".  What do you think it would do to our country to "get back to God"? 

The Tea Party has been called racist Chrisotcrats. In their recent convention, most conference sessions began with prayers.  What do you think of the Tea Party?  Do you know very little about them?  Do you know a lot?  Please share your thoughts here.

The piece will be posted on www.releasingreligion.blogspot.com









Views: 1198

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"obamacare" is a watered down version of what he actually wanted...thanks to the Republicans. My understanding is that he wanted the same healthcare for everybody that members of Congress already have. The only people that should be blamed for the healthcare reform are Republicans who made the Democrats water down the bill and the Democrats for being pussies rather than standing their ground as a majority. Most liberals that I know would LOVE the Canadian system.
My mother would agree with you. She LOVES Obamacare! I love her so much and think she is so wonderful I never tell her about my misgivings. That would piss HER off lol.

My mother's number one bitch is that it is not fair that the people who make the laws about health care have better health care than the people that they make the laws for (yep - that would be the Republicans making those laws).

I am largely influenced by my sister-in-law who had breast cancer and tells me that Obamacare concept is a bad thing.

So many issues, so many problems. Cant you see why I am so confused? Even the people close to me in my life have widely differing political opinions.
I campaigned locally and voted for Obama. I wish you were correct in your assumption that the Republicans were the reason we have been given a completely privatized that is nothing more than a gift to the insurance industry. But I can't believe that. Obama negotiated with the insurance companies early in the process and came up with the plan that every American would have to be insured privately before insurance companies would eliminate exclusion of preexisting conditions.

A plan that strengthened Medicare/Medicaid instead of weakening it by allowing them to negotiate with big Pharma and hospital systems would make them a real competitive entity that should actually increase competition and reduce medical and insurance cost. Instead we have a gold plated pig that increases cost and does little to insure those that can't afford it.

I believed Obama too, but his results have been Washington business as usual Where Corporations Come First. Most of his accomplishments have been what the Republicans would have done if they were forced to do anything.
Linda, what provisions of the Affordable Care Act woud lead to delayed diagnosis of cancer and limited treatment options? The act includes a provision that requires routine preventive care and screening to be performed without counting against the deductible or having a co-pay. I'm not sure if mammograms meet the definition, but it sounds like it.

Remember that "Obamacare" doesn't actually change the delivery of care or even directly insure many people. It just prohibits insurance companies from certain evil practices and requires them to cover certain things. It also requires people to buy insurance, from the private insurer of their choice or from government plans open to only some people (with low income, primarily), or to pay a fine. "Obamacare" in no way limits anybody's choice of doctor (beyond limits already enforced by private insurance companies) or impacts waiting times or treatment options (again, beyond what the insurance companies already do).

In short, the Affordable Care Act requires that people pay into the existing health care system to reduce the number of freeloaders (a Republican idea, which they now insist is unconstitutional), and that insurance companies stop screwing their customers and potential customers so egregiously. It sounds to me like your example is a GOP talking point, devoid of substance, just like the "death panel" nonsense.

Oh and Susan, apparently the act requires members of Congress to purchase their own insurance on the new exchanges, just like everybody else. I didn't know that until reading the Wikipedia article above.
Hopefully that will force Congress to really give us good health care insurance. Since it effects then now.
Linda, what provisions of the Affordable Care Act woud lead to delayed diagnosis of cancer and limited treatment options? The act includes a provision that requires routine preventive care and screening to be performed without counting against the deductible or having a co-pay. I'm not sure if mammograms meet the definition, but it sounds like it.

I agree it all sounds wonderful but from what I can gather - Republicans and Tea Party people are worried that the system will deteriorate and not be able to keep up to it's intended standards.
But Linda, that's basically a fear of what might happen in the future. My brother told me last year that he opposed the Affordable Care Act because he was concerned that it would lead to greater access to abortion in the future. Of course, it actually seems to have gone the other direction on that, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to oppose a current piece of legislation on the grounds that it could be made worse by a future Congress. Ultimately, that boils down to a fear of Congress. Any Congress.

This is my overarching frustration with the Teabaggers; they are driven entirely by what they are worried might happen, rather than by what is actually happening in the here and now.
But Linda, that's basically a fear of what might happen in the future.

@ Jason - It is true that life turns out far differently than you could have ever imagined. I could not fathom 20 years ago seeing myself having these wonderful conversations with so many great people from all over the world. And all you have to do is sit down - do some reading - do some typing and wellah - you have fascinating conversation and even occassional drama and even meet people who become your real life friends (definitely happened to me in the past). Life can be so awesome!

This is my overarching frustration with the Teabaggers; they are driven entirely by what they are worried might happen, rather than by what is actually happening in the here and now.


Your above statement struck a deep chord with me. More to ponder.
@ Linda. Don't worry about popularity contests. How boring would this conversation be if we all agreed with each other? And from what I can understand, you are merely asking questions, sometimes playing devil's advocate, seeking clarification. And that is what the discussion is all about, right? I wish there were more people out there like you who TOOK the time to gather facts. You could have just read along this thread, not said anything, and not learned anything at all. It speaks volumes that you decided to join in. And I think we're all learning something along with you.

It is important that we not lump Tea Baggers all together. Hence my disdain for many Christians in the country lumping Muslims together. That said, there are still standards for the Tea Party that I think we can decipher based on their vast majority. I am interested in your family member's breast cancer & why it may be or may have gotten delayed. Even Obama himself has admitted that the health care plan is not perfect. I don't think we should expect it to be. So I'm interested in ways the current health care can be improved.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of atheists who are going to go along with Tea Party beliefs, mainly because of their heavily influenced Christian background. So I think that's why you're seeing that overwhelming negativity on this thread. Not that that's the only reason, mind you, as we delve into other political topics.
I wish there were more people out there like you who TOOK the time to gather facts.

@ Maia - I'm glad and thankful you see worth in my participation. About your above statement - I can't get too much credit for "taking the time". I have lots of time on my hands at the moment, due to unusual extenuating circumstances, and am thrilled to be able to use the opportunity to feed my head.

I wish more people could have more time to be able to learn all the things they want to learn but life keeps everybody running so fast and so hard. I think to search for truth and knowledge is one of the wonders of being human.
I am interested in your family member's breast cancer & why it may be or may have gotten delayed.

@ Maia - My sister-in-law was caught extremely early with MRI because her family history is chocked full of breast cancer and because of that her doctor recommended she go to a specialist to get her mammo any time she had a mammo after the age of 40. It did not show up on the mammo but due to her family history the specialist then took the extra precaution of ultra-sound (did not show up on that either) so then they did an MRI and found a tiny lump. She had a double mastectomy but thankfully - no chemo or radiation required - she is a three year survivor. She was 43 years old at the time. Strange that my cousin died at 43 years - I just realized that connection.

In my cousin's case - she had a mammo at age 40 - skipped getting one at age 41 and at age 42 had the pain in her back addressed medically and that was when they discovered she was full of cancer everywhere, brain, lungs, liver, spine, bones, said it started in her breast (the most aggressive breast cancer - tripple negative). It was discovered she did have the Bracca 1 gene. It was the doctor's opionion that it was very possible she had the cancer when she got the mammo at age 40 and it was not detected by the mammo. Whether it would have been detected by the ultra-sound or MRI - I have no idea and I don't think I can ask her family about that since they are all still in a total state of complete devastation. She died a couple months ago. She did have a sister who died of lung cancer at age 41 (strange isn't it?) Maybe she should have gone to a specialist since her sister died young of cancer but it was not from breast cancer.

So anyway my sister-in-law tells me that if she had been a Canadian citizen she feels the chances would have been increased that the early diagnosis would not have happened. She belongs to on-line breast cancer forums and I assume this is where she formed this opinion. Of course it can depend on the doctor that you see. She could have ended up with a doctor that did not recommend her to go to a specialist to have the mammo.

It can get complicated.

The other night I saw a commerical on television where a Canadian lady was saying she had a brain tumor and she would not "be here right now" if she had followed the Canadian health care guide-lines and she was telling America that national health care was a bad idea. Of course this could be untrue and just more propaganda against Obamacare but come on folks - look what I have to contend with. I keep hearnig that Phil Collins song from 1987 over and over in my head "Land of Confusion".

I'm sure there are people on this thread that are going to get fed up and sick and tired of my crying about my poor pitiful confusion but I'd rather those people just ignore me than be rude to me. Or if they want to bitch about something I'm saying - you can always do it in a polite and diplomatic way - it cost nothing to be nice. It cost me having to try to make you look like an ass if you are not nice.
Confusion is fine. I have confusion, too, which is why I'm asking all these questions.

Thank you for sharing this story. So I'm going to pass this off to my health care experts... Jason, Larry, and all you others who probably know more about this than I do. In the mean time, I'm going to look this up, because that is a very valid question. Does National Health care mean delays in treatment? If so, why?

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service