100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:26 PM
|
|
Don't be a hypocrite.
How am I being a hypocrite? 
The thread is titled "is evolution compatible with the Bible"
Yes and that is exactly what we were discussing before you decided to interject a quote that was taken from the very beginning of the thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:22 PM
|
|
Whether it was stated at the beginning of the thread or not you stated it not me and then you tried to say that I started it. And you call me a fiber!
You are a fibber because you implied that I somehow got off topic when it was you who took a quote back from the very start of the thread (where it was being discussed with the OP by the way) and then pasted that quote during the evolutionary discussion. Yet you are denying doing this and I just quoted it! Now you are trying to blame the off topic debate on me.
Not trying. I just quoted where you interrupted the debate with an off topic quote. You are the one implying I did something wrong not vice versa and you know it. Grow up.
You DID do something wrong and you annoyed a lot of people by picking up my quote (from the very start of the thread) and posting it again during the debate on evolution. What is so difficult to understand here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said: "You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread."
Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary?
Show me a fib Krimsa. You are crap starter plain and simple. You engage in character and creditbility assassination, even when it is unwarranted, at every opportunity and you dare judge me. Get a life. You told a fib when you stated that I was somehow responsible for interjecting this into the discussion about evolution when I clearly posted where you had interrupted the debate with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 07:10 PM
|
|
What are you talking about? This was stated way at the beginning of the thread. So you go and quote it and interrupt during a debate about evolution that was going on like 15 pages (or more later.) What I quoted was your interruption of that debate which was already in progress and ON TOPIC. I don’t understand your second comment at all. You were the one that interjected non related subject matter. Are you implying I did something wrong? I should report you right now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
It never got off topic that I saw anyway. Its all relative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To recap Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit NOT water. One of the verses in John that you quoted is talking only of baptism by water(which Jesus did not perform) and the other is speaking of two different types of baptism.
As I stated if Peter was in the river performing a baptism of water while Jesus was performing a baptism of the Holy Spirit "while they tarried", then Jesus was performing baptisms with his disciples. I don't expect you to understand or agree- I am posting this in case a babe in Christ is reading this thread and is confused. A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
krimsa said:
"You would be fully aware of this if you had taken the time to read and digest about the past 3 pages of this thread."
Yes, I did tell you to read the last three pages of this thread which were about EVOLUTION. Isnt there something in the bible about not telling fibs Gary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was your original quote taken from this very thread when you ORIGIONALLY bought up this off topic discussion;
Gary said: Well according to you, God can not be tempted? Alright if you fail to see the contradiction there, I will move on. I keep notes as you are well aware.. Did Jesus baptize anyone? YES John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. NO John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.
Krimsa John 4:2 States that Jesus baptized his disciples, it does not state that he did not perform any baptisms. You have taken this scripture out of context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 06:40 PM
|
|
Heather,
No I don’t know any more about it than you do, trust me. I have only the most general understanding of how universal healthcare operates and that is based solely on what Canada is doing. Like I mentioned, it is not unproblematic. Not by a long shot. It basically prohibits extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. It essentially allows for comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility. You can also still have some private insurance access. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 06:23 PM
|
|
ER Services don't cover every need and shouldn't. Emergency rooms are over-flowing with health concerns that should be addressed by a primary care provider or pediatrician, who can and do turn folks away for lack of insurance. That just unnecessarily adds to the cost the insurance companies/government have to cover or the or the hospital has to absorb. That was not the question posed. It was whether not a person would be denied ER services and the answer to that question is a flat "no." A person should not be in the ER taking up the time of those doctors and nurses if they already have a primary care physician to begin with. Whether or not it was the questioned posed, I am pointing out that ER doesn't cover every need. But clearly it’s not designed to.
Which was my point. But that is quite obvious isn’t it? I also stated that people should not be seeking medical treatment in an ER UNLESS they require emergency medical care. No, really, I don't think it is obvious to a lot of folks, which is why ERs are always standing room only. I meant the comment was obvious. I stated from the onset that hospital ERs will not refuse emergency service to people on the basis of inability to pay. Do you agree with that? That was what I was discussing and the point that was made. Sorry if that was unclear to you for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
I def. agree that not all docs are rich. Most of the small town docs around here don't make much money. Again, I place some of that blame on the insurance companies. Everything has to be billed so high just in order to recoup any payment for their service. Something has to change, I just think we as americans shouldn't jump on the universal health care bandwagon just yet. What would be your main issue with universal health care? Universal health care is coverage that would extend to all eligible residents and cover medical, dental, and mental health care. It would probably help you out tremendously. Because I don't think it's the federal governments place to review my health records and determine whether or not I can choose to take a life saving treatment, in the event that I have a grave medical illness. I'd like that to be between my own personal doctor and I. That's my short answer, I could go on all night about this. Basically there needs to be reform on this bill before it passes. It should not be snuck in under the guise of a stimulus package. Except you just said: In fact, when I order her medical supplies each month, the supply company will only send what the govt. insurance would allow,
The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible. Most countries implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis. Clearly its a trade off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Faith is Fantasy
|
|
I have been in there twice now when a thread was reported and moved over there and I had already posted in it. It’s boring and their topics never move up barely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
ER Services don't cover every need and shouldn't. Emergency rooms are over-flowing with health concerns that should be addressed by a primary care provider or pediatrician, who can and do turn folks away for lack of insurance. That just unnecessarily adds to the cost the insurance companies/government have to cover or the or the hospital has to absorb. That was not the question posed. It was whether not a person would be denied ER services and the answer to that question is a flat "no." A person should not be in the ER taking up the time of those doctors and nurses if they already have a primary care physician to begin with. Whether or not it was the questioned posed, I am pointing out that ER doesn't cover every need. But clearly it’s not designed to.
Which was my point. But that is quite obvious isn’t it? I also stated that people should not be seeking medical treatment in an ER UNLESS they require emergency medical care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
I def. agree that not all docs are rich. Most of the small town docs around here don't make much money. Again, I place some of that blame on the insurance companies. Everything has to be billed so high just in order to recoup any payment for their service. Something has to change, I just think we as americans shouldn't jump on the universal health care bandwagon just yet. What would be your main issue with universal health care? Universal health care is coverage that would extend to all eligible residents and cover medical, dental, and mental health care. It would probably help you out tremendously. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
ER Services don't cover every need and shouldn't. Emergency rooms are over-flowing with health concerns that should be addressed by a primary care provider or pediatrician, who can and do turn folks away for lack of insurance. That just unnecessarily adds to the cost the insurance companies/government have to cover or the or the hospital has to absorb. That was not the question posed. It was whether not a person would be denied ER services and the answer to that question is a flat "no." A person should not be in the ER taking up the time of those doctors and nurses if they already have a primary care physician to begin with. Whether or not it was the questioned posed, I am pointing out that ER doesn't cover every need. But clearly it’s not designed to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
We? Do you work in the field of healthcare Rock? yeah i do. and we never EVER turn anyone away. but we make it clear to patients whether we take their insurance plans or not. it has nothing to do with the level of care they receive for us. Hell i've even made it a habit for patients with major diseases/emergencies to find them an ophthalmologist who takes insurances we don't just in case they cannot afford/refuse to pay for the appointment. if someone cannot afford to come to us.. we don't care where they go! as long as they get checked out. ya know? people make it seem like doctors care only about cash. my dr doesn't drive a porche, doesn't live in a giant house and doesn't wear armani suits. he puts his patients first. hell we even do payment plans with no financing. we do it on trust. and do what whatever is necessary to save their vision. *grumbles* there is 2 sides to every coin. flip the coin over once in a while and it might show you a different world. I sympathize. I have health insurance now but I know in the past when I have not had it, I was still treated when I broke my arm in three places and they simply set up a payment plan for me (interest free) and were very accommodating. They allowed me take nearly two years to pay it off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 05:54 PM
|
|
ER Services don't cover every need and shouldn't. Emergency rooms are over-flowing with health concerns that should be addressed by a primary care provider or pediatrician, who can and do turn folks away for lack of insurance. That just unnecessarily adds to the cost the insurance companies/government have to cover or the or the hospital has to absorb. That was not the question posed. It was whether not a person would be denied ER services and the answer to that question is a flat "no." A person should not be in the ER taking up the time of those doctors and nurses if they already have a primary care physician to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 05:50 PM
|
|
We? Do you work in the field of healthcare Rock?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Because gods help those who help themselves
Yeah but "worry" is an ineffective emotion. In fact it can cause paralysis and failure to act in many people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Hippocratic Oath
|
|
They may not refuse admittance but you'd be surprised at the amount of other things that will be refused. I have a child who is on a program through the state because of her severe disabilities. It doesn't have anything to do with welfare or how much money I make, but it comes WITH a medicaid card. She has insurance through her dad and myself (of which I pay over 400 bucks out of pocket each month) and yet we still get the raised eyebrows when they see Medicaid as PART of her payor source. In fact, when I order her medical supplies each month, the supply company will only send what the govt. insurance would allow, even though she has 2 primary insurances that come FIRST. Medical treatment is in no way equal to all who need it, and it's a damn shame.
That was the point I just made about socialized health care and the system in place in Canada. You will never be denied ER services in the US. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
