Difficulty score 10. No green.

Done, no green.

go

Done

" In America until recently, most people, whether Christian or not pretty much accepted a Christian world view."

Ummmmmmm. No. Not really. Not as I understand the meaning at all.

Unless you think Jesus would have approved of brutal slavery, mass genocide, legal and social acceptance of discrimination against huge masses of people, etc.

don

SJ - correct, these things do not align with a Christian world view, but nobody is totally consistent either. By the way, I don't know what mass genocide you might be referring to -- the holocaust under Hitler? The Stalin purges? The Mao purges? But I can't find anything like that in US history.

done, ng

Native Americans

Ummm--that would be due to bacteria and viruses.

And the Trail of Tears. And Sand Creek. And Wounded Knee. And Gnadenhutten.

Those were wars. Not mass genocide. Not our best moments, but certainly not genocide.

The Trail of Tears was an act of war now? Which war was that?

Regardless of that: I cannot think of a single way in which America can conceivably ever have legitimately claimed to be a christian country.

I am not claiming that Christianity was built into our form of government or that we are a Christian nation. We were a nation made up predominantly of people who were at least nominally Christian.

Ah, OK. I understand now.

Even now the majority claims to be Christian, but I don't believe we are living it. Neither did our ancestors, but I think they were closer to it than we are.

What criteria are you using? Because it seems to me that we've been moving closer to christian ideals in the last few, say fifty, years, than we've ever been before.

So this at least suggests a fairly deep divide in what we consider to be christian values.

Christian values must be based on a right understanding of God. He is not simply a God of love, though he is that. He is also a Holy God, who hates and punishes sin. We have lost the sense of hatred for sin and replaced it with a nebulous sort of love.

If someone disapproves of certain behavior they are unloving by the new standards of "Christianity". But is it truly loving to never warn a person that he is on the path to destruction?

Huh. You know why I don't take that seriously, is because I only see it applied erratically. I've honestly never seen that sort of thinking applied except as an excuse for bigotry.

For example: I just don't ever recall a bunch of marriage clerks refusing to remarry divorced couples, or bakers refusing to bake cakes for remarriages, even though JC had a LOT more to say about divorce than about homosexuality.

And the definition of "sin" seems to shift with the political landscape. I am just old enough to remember when the christian right had no problem with, say, abortion, at all, and yes, I can provide cites for that.

No, if you are a parent you tried to apply it, I hope. Parents will be confronted with certain behavior in their children that they do not approve of. If they love their children they correct them. They express their disapproval of the wrong behavior and even punish it.

Oh good lord no. I'd be a terrible mother. My dogs are about all I can handle.

But I'm thinking more on the macroscopic scale, as applied to public policy and law. I have a hard time believing that a country that was founded on slavery and now at least nominally strives for equal rights is moving *away* from christian values.

The country was not founded on slavery. Where did you get that idea?

This country was built on the backs of slaves. Without slavery, this country wouldn't exist as we know it today. I'm not saying it was the only foundation, but it was certainly a major building block.

50 years ago anyone refusing to cater, or photograph a marriage because 1 or both had been divorced just wasn't news. No wonder you never heard of it.

No, it was not built on the backs of slaves. Slavery was confined to the plantations in the south. The majority of the wealth of this country was generated by industrialists in the north without slave labor.

Slavery in the north wasn't abolished until the early nineteenth century, roughly fifty years before the civil war.

The north certainly had a higher percentage of free labor--industrialization will do that to you--but the north was hardly slave free

And yet slavery did not account for the wealth of this country. It was primarily the labor of free men.

In 1860, slaves were the single largest financial asset in America. There were more millionaires in Mississippi than in anywhere else in the US. I think you're underestimating, or we're using different definitions of "wealth".

Slavery did benefit the south, but they were far less wealthy than the north which was not dependent on slavery. That is a major reason they lost the Civil War.

Ok, I think we are using different definitions of "wealth" then. I'm talking about assets, of which slaves and land were the most valuable, which the south had in abundance. But I think you're talking about industrialization.

Wealth is simply the ability to do what you want or need to do.

Yes. That definition means that wealth changes, and it inherently means that mechanization--industrialization--is more valuable than mere assets, which is probably the more common definition.

I tend to agree with yours more, it's just not what I was expecting, because less common.

I believe that the industrialized north produced more wealth for more people than the plantations in the south. Plantation owners were very wealthy, but they were a small minority of southerners.

There was certainly a greater divide in the south, much like we see globally today. The break between the .01% and the rest was damned sharp.

Free markets have a way of spreading the wealth around (probably far better than Bernie Sanders could ever hope to do :). Slavery concentrated wealth in the hands of a few.

Hmmm. I have a lot of faith in free markets to get a lot of things right, and just as much faith that they'll get a long of things horribly wrong. I'm also sure that truly free markets are rarer than hen's teeth.

While free markets may not be a perfect solution, they are the best solution found so far for giving everyone a chance to get rich.

You seem to be conflating "free markets" with "industrialization" as if they naturally go together. Am I misreading that?

While they tend to complement each free markets and industrialization are not the same.

Russia under Stalin became an industrialized nation, but they did not have free markets.

Using your definition of "wealth" I'd have to say that many socialist countries have citizens with far more wealth than the US seems to. Places with guaranteed health care, for example, give people a lot more freedom to do what they want to do, to take more risks.

But nationalized health care is only there until it goes broke. When you can get all the health care you need for free, you tend to use more. But that can't be sustained forever.

Well, privatized health care is only there until *you* go broke, so I'm not sure how that's an improvement. And when you can get all the health care you need, well, preventative health care is consistently cheaper.

This is why Americans spend MORE per capita on health care than any other country, not less.

That is what health insurance was intended for. To prevent you going broke in case of catastrophic illness or injury.

In case you hadn't noticed, it ain't working. Health insurance is no guarantee against that, at all. Also: health insurance, on a private market, is still available in every country with socialized costs. And it STILL costs less.

The reason we spend more is because health insurance covers everything, not just catastrophic events. We have a similar situation to nationalized health care already, you never actually pay for anything out of your own pocket.

Ummmmmm . . . then why are health care costs the #1 reason for bankruptcies, if no one's paying for this out of their pockets?

When was the last time you shopped for medical care on the basis of cost?

When my husband had an MRI. I discovered it was pointless; we could have gotten it much cheaper, if we'd driven to Brownsville. But that's not feasible.

Oh, and of course I buy generics when that's possible. That's certainly shopping on the basis of cost. And I can think of other instances. Why?

Well, your MRI anecdote illustrates the lack of competition in medical care which contributes to inflated costs. And generic medicines are quite cheap usually which also illustrates what happens when there is competition on the basis of cost.

I don't think our current health insurance system is working, but I don't think putting the government in charge will improve anything.

Lack of competition? There's huge competition. Healthcare prices vary radically around the country; it's just that going to places that have cheaper costs requires an investment in time that most people can't make.

It's very much like housing that way. High local demand will drive up costs, as it does in big cities; inthe country, health care and housing are much cheaper, because of free markets.

But if only one provider is available to you, then there is no competition!

"Only one provider"? There are a half dozen different competing hospitals within a fifteen minute drive from my house! But they all charge similar rates for MRIs, because the local demand sets that price.

Just like there's a ton of different apartment complexes, but they all charge similar prices.

Was your husband's MRI covered by insurance?

Only partially, which is also true of his subsequent surgeries, and both of our ongoing medications.

And, really, none of this changes the fact that we live in a country where people with cancer have to set up gofundme accounts in order to have some hope of not dying, or living in pain.

Our privatized system provides worse outcomes for more money than *any* socialized system. Think maybe it's time to try something different?

Look at this website, you may find it helpful:

http://truecostofhealthcare.net/

Its late, good night SJ.

I'll look at the website. Pick this up tomorrow, maybe?

Good night.

go

ding

Go go go, SJ. I think we were separated at birth! ;)

I particularly like this part http://truecostofhealthcare.net/health-insura\nnce-tricks-trade/

SamanthaJoy this is America. If you get cancer it is your fault. You should have become a hedge fund manager and make $1 billion a year. Then you wouldn't have to worry about medical bills. What are you a taker? You had every opportunity to become a CEO of a major Pharmaceutical Company or Health Insurance company. Take some personal responsibility. Stop sponging off the rest of us who have had every advantage. It makes us feel bad for being successful. Oh wait. No it doesn't. We could care less. <---Total sarcasm.

Evening all.

start

ding

SJ - you're totally right in thinking preventative check ups lowers overall health costs. Interestingly costs around the world vary dramatically. interesting link https://www.axapppinternational.com/en/person\nal/international-health-insurance/worldwide-c\nost-of-operations/

I'd willingly go to the Netherlands for an operation. Lots of Aussies are going overseas for dental work and having a holiday at the same time. Lots of Australians are setting up practices to offer the same service but much cheaper.

http://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/01/05/top-5-b\nest-countries-medical-tourism/ India is a good option too.

SJ look a little further for competition and you'll be amazed. Good luck and a speedy recovery to your husband.

go

done

I am considering going to either Colombia or Uruguay for dental implants.

Amen to speedy recovery SJ. Even though it can be a financial hardship there have been more better outcomes lately. The clockmaker I apprentice for, two family friends, a customer in the shop all cancer free after treatment in the last year and a half.

start

Done. ng, ng.

EZPZ. 12.

dng

Done

finally caught back up