Dr. Benjamin Carson's Health Care Reform Ideas

[RollTideMD]

Just wanted to hear some opinions on Dr. Benjamin Carson's health care reform ideas, after he talked recently at the National Prayer Breakfast. This has been on the news and just thought it'd be an interesting topic to bring up.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MedPR]

Cliffs?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[CrimsonKing]

Physician who publicly declares that evolution is false and uses his fame to push creationist agenda.

Would not trust his opinions on reforming healthcare, as they probably ignore facts in favor of fiction.

 

[GlowInTheDark]

My thought is that it is a sad commentary on society when a speech with such common sense is considered profound.

 

[GlowInTheDark]

Physician who publicly declares that evolution is false and uses his fame to push creationist agenda.

Would not trust his opinions on reforming healthcare, as they probably ignore facts in favor of fiction.

Based off what? That he is an overt christian, ergo, he doesn't think reasonably?

Its comments like yours that the first few minutes of his speech are directed at.

 

[MedPR]

Physician who publicly declares that evolution is false and uses his fame to push creationist agenda.

Would not trust his opinions on reforming healthcare, as they probably ignore facts in favor of fiction.

Evolution is false and our creator merely made it seem real for laughs.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[CrimsonKing]

Based off what? That he is an overt christian, ergo, he doesn't think reasonably?

Its comments like yours that the first few minutes of his speech are directed at.

No problem at all with him being overtly Christian. My problem is his complete denial of rational evidence for evolution, particulary the constantly observed evolution of microorganisms at the root of the modern antibiotic resistance crisis.

There is nothing wrong with having faith, but there is something wrong when one ignores facts simply because they contradict the literal interpretation of a religious text.

As a physician and quite extraordinary surgeon, Dr. Carson has a responsibility to lead and educate, not simply follow doctrine that contradicts the very science that we use in medicine.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

No problem at all with him being overtly Christian. My problem is his complete denial of rational evidence for evolution, particulary the constantly observed evolution of microorganisms at the root of the modern antibiotic resistance crisis.

There is nothing wrong with having faith, but there is something wrong when one ignores facts simply because they contradict the literal interpretation of a religious text.

As a physician and quite extraordinary surgeon, Dr. Carson has a responsibility to lead and educate, not simply follow doctrine that contradicts the very science that we use in medicine.

as a scientist, you should know that evolution is not fact.

 

[Azimuthal]

as a scientist, you should know that evolution is not fact.

Im sure all he's saying is [in his view] evolution theory> God theory. I personally don't care how one derived their ideals for a man-made social system, as long as it's social impacts are acceptably positive. What is considered acceptably positive is also debatable. Whew! Glad I'm not in the policy making business.

 

[MedPR]

as a scientist, you should know that evolution is not fact.

As a scientist you should know that almost nothing is fact and evolution, like gravity, is about as good as it gets.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[CrimsonKing]

as a scientist, you should know that evolution is not fact.

Yes, and neither is gravity or relativity.

As a pre-med, you should get used to the knowledge that a theory is NOT a hypothesis. It is as close to fact as you get in science, with the exception of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[lobo.solo]

Links? What's the jest of his talk?

 

[FSU2013]

Yay! Let's not discuss some very sensible solutions to very big problems as we'd rather dismiss a man because he is a Christian. Never mind the fact that he is one of the most brilliant and accomplished surgeons to ever live, let's not listen to him because he believes that God created the world (in spite of the fact that this is in no way, shape or form a subject of his talk)! Not only should we ignore him, we should also only consider our own beliefs and not look into Christian apologetics, because, after all, if you believe in God you must be a toothless redneck who can't tie your own shoes.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Yay! Let's not discuss some very sensible solutions to very big problems as we'd rather dismiss a man because he is a Christian. Never mind the fact that he is one of the most brilliant and accomplished surgeons to ever live, let's not listen to him because he believes that God created the world (in spite of the fact that this is in no way, shape or form a subject of his talk)! Not only should we ignore him, we should also only consider our own beliefs and not look into Christian apologetics, because, after all, if you believe in God you must be a toothless redneck who can't tie your own shoes.

Reread my statements for comprehension.

I have no problem with the opinion that God created the world (there is absolutely no scientific way to prove or disprove said fact, and thus creation is not within the realm of science at all).

Creationism in its modern context refers to the refusal to accept natural selection for the evolution of species and follows the viewpoint that a 6000 year old Earth arose with human beings already upon it. This is something that is easily scientifically disproven, which is why there is no debate about whether or not evolution exists in scientific circles.

Ben Carson has shown that he is unable to differentiate his religious viewpoints from scientific principles and practice. The fact that he is a renowned surgeon only makes this worse, considering that his words carry weight and mislead patients towards disbelieving in the need for recurrent vaccination and stringent management of antibiotics.

As a final disclaimer, I myself identify as Christian, but I do not let that blind me to the science of our natural world.

Read the article on his reforms and see how ludicrous most of the ideas are. I'll wait.

 

[Pattycake25]

I'm unable to find much information on the guy's ideas, the only sites google is turning up are staunch conservative websites like NewsBusters and FreeRepublic as well as other conservative blogs.

The idea of a medical savings plan is foolish. It doesn't address current issues of health inequities and is a slap in the face to any concept of justice that I'm familiar with other than a strict libertarian one.

Wikipedia has a quote from him explicitly rejecting evolution, and subtly revealing he does not quite understand it (he seems to think evolution asserts itself as a mechanism of interchangeability, instead of an explanation of our apparent common origins).

I had no idea about this belief of his until today. Very disappointing indeed.

 

[Dr Love]

OK, no one cares about this evolution-creationism argument - it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

What did Dr. Carson say and what were his ideas? I couldn't find any info on it and don't want to bother listening to the whole thing.

 

[Shinobiz11]

Reread my statements for comprehension.

I have no problem with the opinion that God created the world (there is absolutely no scientific way to prove or disprove said fact, and thus creation is not within the realm of science at all).

Creationism in its modern context refers to the refusal to accept natural selection for the evolution of species and follows the viewpoint that a 6000 year old Earth arose with human beings already upon it. This is something that is easily scientifically disproven, which is why there is no debate about whether or not evolution exists in scientific circles.

Ben Carson has shown that he is unable to differentiate his religious viewpoints from scientific principles and practice. The fact that he is a renowned surgeon only makes this worse, considering that his words carry weight and mislead patients towards disbelieving in the need for recurrent vaccination and stringent management of antibiotics.

As a final disclaimer, I myself identify as Christian, but I do not let that blind me to the science of our natural world.

Read the article on his reforms and see how ludicrous most of the ideas are. I'll wait.

Has he advised against vaccinations and denied antibiotic resistence before? That just sounds stupid. Just because you don't believe humans somehow, over millions of years, evolved from a unicellular organism, doesn't mean you automatically deny natural selection. I mean, MRSA is a serious threat he must know about.

Sent from my LG-MS770 using SDN Mobile

 

[Nymphicus]

Here is the link to the speech:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...al_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Im sure all he's saying is [in his view] evolution theory> God theory. I personally don't care how one derived their ideals for a man-made social system, as long as it's social impacts are acceptably positive. What is considered acceptably positive is also debatable. Whew! Glad I'm not in the policy making business.

Agreed.

As a scientist you should know that almost nothing is fact and evolution, like gravity, is about as good as it gets.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

I do know that nothing is fact, so there is no relative scale of what is 'about as good as it gets'.

Yes, and neither is gravity or relativity.

As a pre-med, you should get used to the knowledge that a theory is NOT a hypothesis. It is as close to fact as you get in science, with the exception of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

And if someone where to comment that the two of those were fact, I would be posting the same thing.

And no sir, a theory is not as close to fact as you get in science. A theory is just that, a theory. There are no facts in science, only support and rejection against concepts. While evolution is very much supported, there are also parts of the theory that are not supported. Same goes for religion.

 

[GlowInTheDark]

I'm unable to find much information on the guy's ideas, the only sites google is turning up are staunch conservative websites like NewsBusters and FreeRepublic as well as other conservative blogs.

The idea of a medical savings plan is foolish. It doesn't address current issues of health inequities and is a slap in the face to any concept of justice that I'm familiar with other than a strict libertarian one.

You missed the line where he said, (paraphrase) "For those that don't have money to contribute to their HSA we can add money for them since we are no longer wasting it with bureaucracy. They will learn to be responsible for their own healthcare."

Strict libertarian? No. Its called responsibility.

As idealistic as his ideas may be...my pessimism takes over. The fiscal irresponsibility of our government is woven into the fiber of the People and is not going to be reversed. Healthcare is a right, but not a responsibility most people are willing to assume until req'd.

 

[JayWebb]

Dr. Carson has some great insight, however, his proposed healthcare plan only works if everyone is able to work and only gets sick in a linear fashion with age. Thousands of children and parents of children with leukemia would be out of luck after a week of treatment. And I suppose it would rule out death panels, because once an elderly patient on biweekly dialysis runs out of money in their health savings plan, they'd have run out of money to live. So either we make exceptions or we let anyone that gets "too sick" to die. But then if we make exceptions (like the government putting money into their HSA), then there will be "treatment panels" that decide if you are sick enough to meet the requirements to receive the benefits of that exception. Of course, you could allow patients the right to also purchase supplementary insurance, but as 90% of people already pay more in to insurance than they get out of it, there would be no profitable or affordable market for it. The worst part of his plan, though, is that you just can't give people the ability to manage the way their healthcare dollars are spent. Not because you don't want them to have that power, but because 99% of the public is unaware of how to handle it. So if someone's fund is low and they get a stomach ache, they may say, "Well I'll just wait it out," until they get a GI perforation from their chronic NSAID use that they've been taking to avoid the cost of a doctor and proper pain medication, then end up in trauma surgery. On the other end of the spectrum, most people don't understand the root cause of their conditions. So if a patient does present with a stomach ache and the doctor says "You've been taking too much medicine, wait it out," the patient is likely to disagree and just go to another doctor that will prescribe him "the right medicine."

 

[Euxox]

And no sir, a theory is not as close to fact as you get in science. A theory is just that, a theory.

No, a scientific theory is not a theory in the colloquial sense. As a premed, you should know that. In science, the only facts we have are laws. They are mathematical expressions and equations. For example, the law of gravity says that certain objects tend to move on paths that correspond with an inverse square law.

Theories are best guesses that attempt to give meaning to laws. The theory of gravity says that masses have an attractive force on other masses that is carried by particles known as gravitons and and that this force explains the movements that we observe.

Now if someone were to say that they had a theory of clown gravity in which clowns threw invisible ropes on the moon to pull it in an orbit around the earth, it would be impossible to 100% prove or disprove that, just as with any other theory. And by your logic, both Newton's theory of gravity and the clown theory of gravity are equally valid.

The fact that no theory is provable does not put all theories on a level playing field.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

No, a scientific theory is not a theory in the colloquial sense. As a premed, you should know that. In science, the only facts we have are laws. They are mathematical expressions and equations. For example, the law of gravity says that certain objects tend to move on paths that correspond with an inverse square law.

Theories are best guesses that attempt to give meaning to laws. The theory of gravity says that masses have an attractive force on other masses that is carried by particles known as gravitons and and that this force explains the movements that we observe.

Now if someone were to say that they had a theory of clown gravity in which clowns threw invisible ropes on the moon to pull it in an orbit around the earth, it would be impossible to 100% prove or disprove that, just as with any other theory. And by your logic, both Newton's theory of gravity and the clown theory of gravity are equally valid.

The fact that no theory is provable does not put all theories on a level playing field.

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

And I think your theory of clown gravity is rather plausible. I saw a clown the other night with a huge invisible rope and he wouldn't tell me what he was doing with it. Darn clowns.

 

[Sephiroth]

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

And I think your theory of clown gravity is rather plausible. I saw a clown the other night with a huge invisible rope and he wouldn't tell me what he was doing with it. Darn clowns.

That's because "proof" only exists in mathematics and deductive logic. Outside of those realms it doesn't make sense to talk about "proving" anything - the fact that you do makes me wonder. Science is generally epistemic. Data support models for how certain phenomena of the universe operate, and said data can support these models to different extents. Strongly supported models can become scientific Theories.

 

[CrimsonKing]

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

And I think your theory of clown gravity is rather plausible. I saw a clown the other night with a huge invisible rope and he wouldn't tell me what he was doing with it. Darn clowns.

We have found the Troll.

Or Philosophy major.

 

[galaxyx]

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

And I think your theory of clown gravity is rather plausible. I saw a clown the other night with a huge invisible rope and he wouldn't tell me what he was doing with it. Darn clowns.

The difference between a "theory" and a scientific theory, is that a scientific theory is based on a hypothesis which has been tested by multiple sources and there is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. Gravity, being the least understood force, is probably a pretty poor example of a theory. But it in any case it can be shown that the inverse square law works both at the scale of the earth and the scale of the solar system. For evolution, there is a evidence that there is a natural selection process that occurs in examples such as Galapagos finches, etc. There is no EVIDENCE to suggest that clowns grab the moon with a rope.

 

[kgpremed11]

Physician who publicly declares that evolution is false and uses his fame to push creationist agenda.

Would not trust his opinions on reforming healthcare, as they probably ignore facts in favor of fiction.

I can't thumbs this up enough

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

 

[kgpremed11]

As a scientist you should know that almost nothing is fact and evolution, like gravity, is about as good as it gets.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

yep👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍:

 

[link2swim06]

You can call it a fact, theory, law, or hypothesis. Regardless if you can make it through college biology and not believe in evolution then you are a fool.

It's on the same level as claiming the world is flat.

 

[911 Turbo]

You can call it a fact, theory, law, or hypothesis. Regardless if you can make it through college biology and not believe in evolution then you are a fool.

It's on the same level as claiming the world is flat.

Agreed

 

[Textbookversion]

You can call it a fact, theory, law, or hypothesis. Regardless if you can make it through college biology and not believe in evolution then you are a fool.

It's on the same level as claiming the world is flat.

This!!!

Religion is no excuse for not believing in evolution. If you are religious, feel free and believe god created the world 6k years ago, but he definitely created a world that LOOKS LIKE it was the natural result of physical laws and natural selection over billions of years.

It's kind of like me asserting "God created the world yesterday." You would respond, "no he didn't, I remember the day before that." Then I'd say, "Ah but he created you with those memories." You are me in this example. The memories are there. There is no way to deny it rationally. Denying the memories exist makes you look ridiculous, stupid and irrational.

Feel free and believe what you will about the world being conjured ab initio into existence, evolution through natural selection is real, it is an ongoing process.

 

[Sophocles]

This!!!

Religion is no excuse for not believing in evolution. If you are religious, feel free and believe god created the world 6k years ago, but he definitely created a world that LOOKS LIKE it was the natural result of physical laws and natural selection over billions of years.

It's kind of like me asserting "God created the world yesterday." You would respond, "no he didn't, I remember the day before that." Then I'd say, "Ah but he created you with those memories." You are me in this example. The memories are there. There is no way to deny it rationally. Denying the memories exist makes you look ridiculous, stupid and irrational.

Feel free and believe what you will about the world being conjured ab initio into existence, evolution through natural selection is real, it is an ongoing process.

Haha, this is hilarious. It's like asking if God could make a 70 year old man instantly? Or can God create a stone he can't lift? These questions are dealt with in any philosophy 101 course. Instead of looking at the hypothetical situation you are creating you need to look at the question instead.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

That's because "proof" only exists in mathematics and deductive logic. Outside of those realms it doesn't make sense to talk about "proving" anything - the fact that you do makes me wonder. Science is generally epistemic. Data support models for how certain phenomena of the universe operate, and said data can support these models to different extents. Strongly supported models can become scientific Theories.

If it doesn't make sense to talk about "proving" something then why refer to it as a fact? Facts can be proven.

We have found the Troll.

Or Philosophy major.

minor. I'm just waiting for somebody to bring up a theory as fact again so I can throw solipsism out there.

The difference between a "theory" and a scientific theory, is that a scientific theory is based on a hypothesis which has been tested by multiple sources and there is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. Gravity, being the least understood force, is probably a pretty poor example of a theory. But it in any case it can be shown that the inverse square law works both at the scale of the earth and the scale of the solar system. For evolution, there is a evidence that there is a natural selection process that occurs in examples such as Galapagos finches, etc. There is no EVIDENCE to suggest that clowns grab the moon with a rope.

Your sarcasm meter must be severely broken if you really just wrote that paragraph to deny the clown gravity theory.

 

[FSU2013]

And still, only 1-2 of these posts are relevant to Dr. Carson's talk.....

Disappointed.

 

[AdrianVeidt]

And still, only 1-2 of these posts are relevant to Dr. Carson's talk.....

Disappointed.

I'd be lying if I said I knew Dr. Carson was even in the news this week for a speech he gave.

Sorry 🙁

 

[FSU2013]

I'd be lying if I said I knew Dr. Carson was even in the news this week for a speech he gave.

Sorry 🙁

Watch it. It's only a half hour and definitely worth the time.

He is a proponent of a simplified tax code, investing in education to hopefully decrease penale expenditures, increased HSAs with the ability to pass them on to your children, giving indigent people HSAs instead of Medicaid so that there would be some personal responsibility and (hopefully) decreased overhead. He is also not fond of political correctness. Of note, he says nothing about creationism, vaccinations, etc, yet people have gone off on that tangent and not talked about any of his ideas.

Really, he's a brilliant man who gave an interesting speech (also interesting to see the juxtaposition of Carson and Obama) and its sad that people are dismissing him because his religious views. If someone who was Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist or whatever gave the same speech and was being discredited for their faith, there would be a different conversation on this board....

 

[AdrianVeidt]

Watch it. It's only a half hour and definitely worth the time.

He is a proponent of a simplified tax code, investing in education to hopefully decrease penale expenditures, increased HSAs with the ability to pass them on to your children, giving indigent people HSAs instead of Medicaid so that there would be some personal responsibility and (hopefully) decreased overhead. He is also not fond of political correctness. Of note, he says nothing about creationism, vaccinations, etc, yet people have gone off on that tangent and not talked about any of his ideas.

Really, he's a brilliant man who gave an interesting speech (also interesting to see the juxtaposition of Carson and Obama) and its sad that people are dismissing him because his religious views. If someone who was Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist or whatever gave the same speech and was being discredited for their faith, there would be a different conversation on this board....

I've read some of his book, he sounds like a very intelligent man. I bookmarked his speech on youtube and will definitely give it a view today.

 

[Pattycake25]

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

And I think your theory of clown gravity is rather plausible. I saw a clown the other night with a huge invisible rope and he wouldn't tell me what he was doing with it. Darn clowns.

The theories are all "equally unprovable". As is just about everything outside of math and logic, as was discussed above. That does NOT mean the theories are all equally plausible, are equally substantiated, or do an equal job satisfying the scientific method. The latter points are what Euxox meant when he mentioned the "equal playing field". Evolutionary theory has been supported by countless observations and analyses, and it also came right to the point of predicting the existence of genes (which I would hope you find a viable concept). For Dr. Carson (or anyone) to dispute the reality of evolution, he must either be profoundly unaware of the mountains of evidence in support of it, not intelligent enough to understand said evidence, or not have a rational basis for assessing its validity. Or, as Dawkins said, "Anyone who disbelieves in evolution is ignorant, stupid, or insane." Harsh, but true.

 

[FSU2013]

The theories are all "equally unprovable". As is just about everything outside of math and logic, as was discussed above. That does NOT mean the theories are all equally plausible, are equally substantiated, or do an equal job satisfying the scientific method. The latter points are what Euxox meant when he mentioned the "equal playing field". Evolutionary theory has been supported by countless observations and analyses, and it also came right to the point of predicting the existence of genes (which I would hope you find a viable concept). For Dr. Carson (or anyone) to dispute the reality of evolution, he must either be profoundly unaware of the mountains of evidence in support of it, not intelligent enough to understand said evidence, or not have a rational basis for assessing its validity. Or, as Dawkins said, "Anyone who disbelieves in evolution is ignorant, stupid, or insane." Harsh, but true.

The openmindedness of liberalism and atheism never ceases to amaze.

 

[Gut Shot]

The openmindedness of liberalism and atheism never ceases to amaze.

Give me your opinion of these people.

 

[mcloaf]

The openmindedness of liberalism never ceases to amaze.

I'm open-minded to refutations of evolutionary theory based on repeatable data, not based on literal interpretations of the bible or other religious texts. If you weigh the two as commensurately valid then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[FSU2013]

I'm open-minded to refutations of evolutionary theory based on repeatable data, not based on literal interpretations of the bible or other religious texts. If you weigh the two as commensurately valid then we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm 100% ok with people disagreeing with my beliefs for whatever reason. What makes me crazy is how so many who espouse tolerance and diversity are often the same who say that Christians are idiots.

Gut Shot - you've proven yourself to be a troll who likes to try to denegrate Christianity in the past. No need to say anything other than thanks for not so subtly insinuating that I am
comparable to those who believe in the flat earth.

 

[Perrotfish]

Watch it. It's only a half hour and definitely worth the time.

He is a proponent of a simplified tax code, investing in education to hopefully decrease penale expenditures, increased HSAs with the ability to pass them on to your children, giving indigent people HSAs instead of Medicaid so that there would be some personal responsibility and (hopefully) decreased overhead. He is also not fond of political correctness. Of note, he says nothing about creationism, vaccinations, etc, yet people have gone off on that tangent and not talked about any of his ideas.

Really, he's a brilliant man who gave an interesting speech (also interesting to see the juxtaposition of Carson and Obama) and its sad that people are dismissing him because his religious views. If someone who was Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist or whatever gave the same speech and was being discredited for their faith, there would be a different conversation on this board....

Healthcare is closing in on 25% of our GDP and he wants to pay for it by having everyone put 10% of their savings into a healthcare savings account. He wants poor people to get the money they can't put in from the government but very specifically says he doesn't want the rich people to give that money TO the government. Do you see where that math doesn't add up?

 

[Sephiroth]

If it doesn't make sense to talk about "proving" something then why refer to it as a fact? Facts can be proven.

No, you're missing the point. There are facts of the matter regarding anything that can be asserted. There is a fact of the matter as to whether or not the Earth revolves around the Sun. It cannot be proven one way or another as it cannot be deduced or mathematically derived since we don't have axioms to work with. But what we can do is determine based on evidence what is most likely, and it is overwhelmingly supported by evidence that the Earth does revolve around the Sun, so that is far and away the most likely fact of the matter. It may not be - the Earth may not even exist and we could all be in some Matrix-type system. There is a fact of the matter regarding that possibility too. We can never know with 100% certainty what the facts are, but we can determine what is most likely the case, often to such high levels of certainty that they can be treated as given and it would take something pretty extreme - as in paradigm shift level - to change that.

Watch it. It's only a half hour and definitely worth the time.

He is a proponent of a simplified tax code, investing in education to hopefully decrease penale expenditures, increased HSAs with the ability to pass them on to your children, giving indigent people HSAs instead of Medicaid so that there would be some personal responsibility and (hopefully) decreased overhead. He is also not fond of political correctness. Of note, he says nothing about creationism, vaccinations, etc, yet people have gone off on that tangent and not talked about any of his ideas.

Really, he's a brilliant man who gave an interesting speech (also interesting to see the juxtaposition of Carson and Obama) and its sad that people are dismissing him because his religious views. If someone who was Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist or whatever gave the same speech and was being discredited for their faith, there would be a different conversation on this board....

I don't think that's a fair statement, and no one really cares that he's christian, they care that he's justifying the denial of a foundational aspect of biology on the basis of religious doctrine. It wouldn't be any different if he were doing the same thing with muslim or jewish divine creation.

I haven't watched it yet, so I won't comment on his proposals (and yeah, the thread's really gone off topic from that, but w/e, that's where it's gone), but without seeing what was said, I wouldn't make a judgment one way or another based on whether you think he's a brilliant doctor or a crazy religious fanatic. You can be brilliant in some aspects but subpar in others. You can also be crazy but still have some good ideas.

The openmindedness of liberalism never ceases to amaze.

Your really wanna go there? Now defending basic science is liberal closedmindedness?

 

[FSU2013]

Healthcare is closing in on 25% of our GDP and he wants to pay for it by having everyone put 10% of their savings into a healthcare savings account. He wants poor people to get the money they can't put in from the government but very specifically says he doesn't want the rich people to give that money TO the government. Do you see where that math doesn't add up?

His argument wasnt that we should give 10%. His argument was that we should have a simplified tax structure and one that is not aimed at "punishing the rich," instead attempt to be equitable.

 

[Textbookversion]

His argument wasnt that we should give 10%. His argument was that we should have a simplified tax structure and one that is not aimed at "punishing the rich," instead attempt to be equitable.

He's pushing a stupid republican agenda that doesn't work and is divorced from economic reality, just like he's pushing a christian agenda that is divorced from reality.

snore.

 

[911 Turbo]

I never understood why people say the rich being taxed more than the poor is right.

Rich people should not be taxed all, and poor people should have to pay the bulk of taxes. This way, poor people will have more an incentive to stop being lazy and become rich so they don't have to pay taxes.

 

[FSU2013]

Your really wanna go there? Now defending basic science is liberal closedmindedness?

My point is this: if someone says "Christianity is demonstrably untrue and subsequently all Christians are fools." no one bats an eye. If someone says "I believe there are some obvious flaws in theory of evolution. I believe there is, based on my life experience, studies and observation of the world around me, a higher power and Christianity seems the most plausible." that person is immediately dismissed.

He's pushing a stupid republican agenda that doesn't work and is divorced from economic reality, just like he's pushing a christian agenda that is divorced from reality.

snore.

Thanks for proving my point. People consider themselves tolerant and pride themselves on diversity while categorically dismissing those with dissimilar views from there own.

 

[Gut Shot]

Gut Shot - you've proven yourself to be a troll who likes to try to denegrate Christianity in the past.

You must have me confused with someone else.

No need to say anything other than thanks for not so subtly insinuating that I am comparable to those who believe in the flat earth.

That is not the point I was trying to make. But how closed minded of you to insinuate that flat earth theory should be construed as negative.

 

[ToldYouSo]

I do know that nothing is fact, so there is no relative scale of what is 'about as good as it gets'.

Yes there is. By stating this you are marginalizing the decades+ worth of repeatable scientific experimentation and research that has allowed us to progress.

And this is where we differ in opinion. Evolution cannot be proven just like clown rope gravity cannot be proven just like the existence of God cannot be proven. All sound equally unprovable to me.

Right. When you turn on your computer to type out these ridiculous replies I'm sure you're secretly pleading with it to work, as the electromagnetic theory the circuits are based on is so shaky and as equally unprovable as clown rope gravity that there's a chance it could all just fall apart due to our ignorance.

These hypothetical constructs you're throwing out there have no relevance in the real world, so exactly what point is your "philosophy minor" mind trying to make?