Is the Christian Right willing to sell its Soul to the Republican Party?

[OldRegular]

What was the impact of these on the number of abortions performed in the United States? if I remember correctly it is about o.1%. That a change in the right direction but is actually less than the reduction that occurred in the Clinton administration due to sound economic policy and a strong economy as opposed to two severe recessions during the Bush administration. Who actually did more to reduce abortion? President Clinton.

Can't you ever tell the truth "whoever"? Democrats have never done anything to reduce abortions. Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice. His heart is about as big as your brain.

 

[Tom Bryant]

And even in countries where the gov't mandates health care, an individual cannot just show up and get it. One of our ladies was from Canada. She was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in her eye. By the time a surgeon was able to see her, it had spread and what should have cost her an eye, cost her life.

The same gov't who can't run the post office, who, since taking over education, has made our educational system has spiraled downward, made the VA hospitals and care proverbs for bad treatment, now wants to take care of health care. :BangHead:

 

[just-want-peace]

And even in countries where the gov't mandates health care, an individual cannot just show up and get it. One of our ladies was from Canada. She was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in her eye. By the time a surgeon was able to see her, it had spread and what should have cost her an eye, cost her life.

The same gov't who can't run the post office, who, since taking over education, has made our educational system has spiraled downward, made the VA hospitals and care proverbs for bad treatment, now wants to take care of health care. :BangHead:

There are none so blind as those who (willingly) will not see!!!!:tonofbricks:

 

[alatide]

And even in countries where the gov't mandates health care, an individual cannot just show up and get it. One of our ladies was from Canada. She was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in her eye. By the time a surgeon was able to see her, it had spread and what should have cost her an eye, cost her life.

The same gov't who can't run the post office, who, since taking over education, has made our educational system has spiraled downward, made the VA hospitals and care proverbs for bad treatment, now wants to take care of health care. :BangHead:

There are people on this board that live in countries other than the US. They speak unanimously in favor of their government's health care when compared to the one in the US. The WHO ranks us 34th in the world barely ahead of Cuba. If you would consider those who are disadvantaged instead of just people like yourself you could understand this.

 

[targus]

There are people on this board that live in countries other than the US. They speak unanimously in favor of their government's health care when compared to the one in the US. The WHO ranks us 34th in the world barely ahead of Cuba. If you would consider those who are disadvantaged instead of just people like yourself you could understand this.

Too bad you are unwilling to look at the details behind that study that you love to cite.

One of the greatest factors in determining ranking on the list is percieved potential. Meaning that even if the U.S. is superior in actual health care delivery the ranking is lower because we are not living up to the WHO's snobby idea of what we should be doing.

Also other factors come in to play such as infant mortality. For instance did you know that the U.S. leads in premature infant survival? That our system saves babies born very prematurely. And that many other countries don't even try - so for that reason in those countries the WHO doesn't count a premature baby loss as an infant death? And that all premature infants in the U.S. are calculated in the infant mortality calculation.

I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of the above - but others here no doubt will.

But you can continue with your blathering as ususal.

 

[alatide]

Too bad you are unwilling to look at the details behind that study that you love to cite.

One of the greatest factors in determining ranking on the list is percieved potential. Meaning that even if the U.S. is superior in actual health care delivery the ranking is lower because we are not living up to the WHO's snobby idea of what we should be doing.

Also other factors come in to play such as infant mortality. For instance did you know that the U.S. leads in premature infant survival? That our system saves babies born very prematurely. And that many other countries don't even try - so for that reason in those countries the WHO doesn't count a premature baby loss as an infant death? And that all premature infants in the U.S. are calculated in the infant mortality calculation.

I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of the above - but others here no doubt will.

But you can continue with your blathering as ususal.

Try to act like a Christian and not a Republican if possible.

 

[targus]

Try to act like a Christian and not a Republican if possible.

I will take that as an admission that you do not comprehend the significance of the methodology brhind the WHO report that you love to cite.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Too bad you are unwilling to look at the details behind that study that you love to cite.

One of the greatest factors in determining ranking on the list is percieved potential. Meaning that even if the U.S. is superior in actual health care delivery the ranking is lower because we are not living up to the WHO's snobby idea of what we should be doing.

Also other factors come in to play such as infant mortality. For instance did you know that the U.S. leads in premature infant survival? That our system saves babies born very prematurely. And that many other countries don't even try - so for that reason in those countries the WHO doesn't count a premature baby loss as an infant death? And that all premature infants in the U.S. are calculated in the infant mortality calculation.

Please give me a link. I'd like to read about this.

Deaths per 1000 live births:

Hong Kong 2.92
Japan 2.79
Sweden 2.75
Bermuda 2.46
Singapore 2.31

USA 6.3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

The American Public Health Association stated the following:

Released in October 2008, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics ranks the United States 29th globally in infant mortality in 2004, the latest year such data were available for all countries. The U.S. ranking, which has risen from 12th in 1960 to 23rd in 1990, currently ties the United States with Poland and Slovakia. Authors of the brief, "Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the United States," noted that while such global comparisons can be affected by reporting differences, "it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking." According to the brief, the U.S. infant mortality rate in 2005 was 6.86 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, not much different than the 6.89 rate in 2000 — a lack of decline that has "generated concern among researchers and policy-makers." In fact, the level rate from 2000–2005 represents the first period of ongoing lack of decline in the U.S. infant mortality rate since the 1950s, the brief stated. The Healthy People 2010 target for infant mortality is 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...try&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I see nothing in either article leading me to believe that different definitions were used in calculating the number of deaths per 1000 births. If you have a link showing this in these and other studies I would like to see it.

 

[just-want-peace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by targus

Too bad you are unwilling to look at the details behind that study that you love to cite.

One of the greatest factors in determining ranking on the list is percieved potential. Meaning that even if the U.S. is superior in actual health care delivery the ranking is lower because we are not living up to the WHO's snobby idea of what we should be doing.

Also other factors come in to play such as infant mortality. For instance did you know that the U.S. leads in premature infant survival? That our system saves babies born very prematurely. And that many other countries don't even try - so for that reason in those countries the WHO doesn't count a premature baby loss as an infant death? And that all premature infants in the U.S. are calculated in the infant mortality calculation.

I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of the above - but others here no doubt will.

But you can continue with your blathering as ususal.

And alatide responds with:

Try to act like a Christian and not a Republican if possible.

A perfect example of absolutely no comprehension of that to which he/she responds.:BangHead:

 

[matt wade]

I will take that as an admission that you do not comprehend the significance of the methodology brhind the WHO report that you love to cite.

I've exposed this methodology to him as alatide and as JustChristian. He always ignores the flawed methodology and keeps attempting to use the WHO as a valid report. It is actually quite pitiful.

 

[HankD]

I'm staunchly against elective abortion, but I'm somewhat concerned that a lot of people are single-issue politically. That's fine and dandy, but there seems to be a fair amout of judging others based on whether they lean towards a political affiliation that isn't anti-abortion. The "if you support that pro-choice candidate/position, then you're a [insert conclusion here]". In observation, that conclusion is usually neither accurate nor necessary.

I am that single-issue person John and I am very vocal about it. I personally have never made those kinds of accustations of which you speak.

There are plenty of others who can and do.

However, since an opportune time has presented itself, I would like to bring the Scripture into the equation:

Psalm 106

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Proverbs 6
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.


HankD​

 

[alatide]

I will take that as an admission that you do not comprehend the significance of the methodology brhind the WHO report that you love to cite.

I can read what you wrote but you didn't provide a link or any supporting evidence. Comprende?

 

[targus]

I can read what you wrote but you didn't provide a link or any supporting evidence. Comprende?

You can start here.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

After you partially read and misunderstand this article we can move on to others.

 

[matt wade]

I can read what you wrote but you didn't provide a link or any supporting evidence. Comprende?

Why don't you actually try reading the WHO report? That's how I figured out the methodology it was using. If you read it then you would see exactly what we are talking about.

 

[donnA]

Is the Christian Right willing to sell its Soul to the Republican Party?

you mean like you have to obama? is that what you mean?

 

[saturneptune]

Which is more important, American politics or the furthering of the Kingdom of God? By closely allying with the Republican Party the Christian Right has done tremendous damage to Christ's Church. The Pharisees are in control of their churches and are spewing out political legalism to the unsaved. This completely turns off the lost just as Jesus himself was disgusted by the Pharisee's hypocrisy.

Furthering the Kingdom of God is more important, which is actually done through the local church. God is the Author of all salvation, and sovereign in His purposes, but that is another subject.

Your question is so flawed I do not know where to start. American politics is rotten to the core and has nothing to do with the Lord, and is not worthy to be asked in the same question. Your question implies Republicans are the corrupt ones, which is correct. It also implies Democrats are not, which is, to put it nicely, baloney.

This should have been your question. What can we as American citizens who are children of the Lord do to bring this nation back into line with Biblical principles? One of the answers would be to dismantle the Democratic party and put all the thugs in Washington who are stealing from us daily under their banner in prison, and I mean chopping rocks.

 

[alatide]

Why don't you actually try reading the WHO report? That's how I figured out the methodology it was using. If you read it then you would see exactly what we are talking about.

I have. Why don't you describe what you find incorrect with it? Better yet, why don't you suggest a better comparison? Or are you saying that a comparison of health care systems is inherently impossible? If so, why do you believe that to be the case. That sounds like a good excuse for doing nothing to improve our system.

 

[theolog]

it would be more efficient to plan for taking care of its citizens rather than have them come to hospital emergency rooms with a common cold.

Is it just me? Why does it cost more for a person to go to an ER than to a doctor's office? Certainly there is lower overhead in having a central location as opposed to multiple locations.

I've often heard the argument that we're paying more at the ER because the ER has a lot of equipment (like MRI machines) that doctor's offices don't have. But, seriously... isn't that like saying a Mechanic should charge me more for fixing a flat tire just because he has the equipment to run an emissions check?

 

[Johnv]

Without boring anyone with an economics lesson that is a cure for insomnia...

The ER is primarily designed to treat trauma/emergency patients. The costs associated with trauma treatment is higher than nonemergency care. When a person comes in with a nonemergency problem, it still consumes the same resources as an emergency treatment. OTOH, if an emergency patient comes into a physician's office, the physician will probably not be able to provide adequate ER treatment. In fact, when this happens, a physician is usually only able to stabilize the patient enough to transport that patient to an emergency room.

So, for those who are still awake, the maintenance costs of maintaining an emergency room are inhierently higher than a routine office visit.

 

[rbell]

There are people on this board that live in countries other than the US. They speak unanimously in favor of their government's health care when compared to the one in the US. The WHO ranks us 34th in the world barely ahead of Cuba. If you would consider those who are disadvantaged instead of just people like yourself you could understand this.

Hey, quote a lie often enough...

I'll say it before, and now again: anyone who would make a claim such as you just did has just showed profound and laughable ignorance of our system vs. others.