Yesterday, I relayed a discussion I had with one of my neighbors. It turns out that he is another man that never met Will Rogers. Rick wanted to school me on the 18 points supported by the Democratic Socialists of America. He started his list with “Medicare for All.” I could tell he was launching his own version of the Gish Gallop (Gish Gallop: When People Try to Win Debates by Using Overwhelming Nonsense – Effectiviology) and told him stop right there before he told me his second point. While he vehemently objected, I told him that he wasn’t going to go over a bunch of nonsense before we discussed the first item. A brief description of our discussion follows:

By Don Lacey  ·  July 2026  ·  AZAtheist.com

Introduction

I’m not an expert on the subject. I suspect he wasn’t either. I AM a recent recipient of Medicare benefits because of my recent injury. I know that it worked for me in my situation and that I have no complaints, but I’m no expert. I took it out for a test drive. It doesn’t mean I can fix it or know what’s best. I have thoughts though.

 Medicare already functions as a form of socialized medicine, but only for people whose qualifying “pre-existing condition” is being over 65. In this system, the government acts as the insurance company. That arrangement is not necessarily the best deal for the government, which is—or should be—a nonprofit institution. Insurance companies have been able to be profit organizations because of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. As profit organizations, they are motivated to make money. In other words, they are fine with collecting money from clients but are reluctant to give it back when the need arises. The expression that the insurance companies use is “Delay, Deny, and Defend.” Which mean Delay: Slow down the claim with repeated requests, long review times, or administrative hurdles; Deny: Reject the claim based on policy interpretation, missing documentation, or narrow readings of coverage; and Defend: If the customer pushes back, the insurer digs in—sometimes involving legal defense, extended reviews, or appeals.

In my recent experience, the two government-based insurance organizations didn’t follow that policy. Both Medicare and TriCare took care of me immediately and paid for my injuries. However, it took lawyers to get payment from the insurance companies of the person that caused the accident.

“For profit insurance companies like to take client’s money but are reluctant to pay claims.”

Back to the Discussion

My “unbiased” neighbor then started throwing out the old tropes. 1) “You don’t want the government to be in charge of health care.” And 2) “Capitalism is the best system because it guarantees the best deal for the clients. Why are there different prices for things in different stores?”

These are easy to answer. Not that he was listening. He kept shouting, “Don’t you wan to hear the rest of the 18 points. Why don’t you? How about open borders?” I told him that I really don’t trust his sources and we should dispose of the first point before moving on.

I said yes. I would rather the government of elected representatives oversee the health care instead of greedy corporate boards looking to maximize their bank accounts. To answer his second talking point, which was clearly talking down to me and trying to teach me on capitalism, I simply stated that there are situations where a socialistic approach makes more sense than a capitalistic one.

I had enough of this discussion at this point and temporarily lost my cool. There was no sense in discussing this further. He had just crossed into the “irredeemable zone.” Claiming he was unbiased in his beliefs and then talking down to me. This man was willfully ignorant.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have, but I did

He said, “As a matter of fact, there is no situation where socialism is the answer.” To which I replied in a volume that was way to loud for a sidewalk discussion, “Then you tell me how a library works.” And “What about the existence of fire departments?” Obviously, the discussion was over, complete, fished. I couldn’t help but punctuate the finality of the situation but turning on my heal, flipping him the bird, walking away, and saying over my shoulder, “Go fuck yourself!”

Now dear reader, are we still friends because I just eliminated a potential one?

What was accomplished?

Not much. The situation did give me a subject to blog about. As an activist Atheist in Arizona there are times when I’m drawn into discussions where the outcome is predetermined. I should apologize to Rick, my neighbor. Had I properly assessed the situation, I wouldn’t have had the discussion we had.

There was a Christian radio station host that wanted me to come on his radio program in Phoenix. I told him that before I committed to participating in a discussion on Atheism, he had to answer one simple question. I asked him, “Do you believe that the Biblical story of Noah and the flood is true and represents the actual history of events that happened in the past? He told me that as a Christian I should accept that he believed the story as it was written. I thanked him for the invite, but I couldn’t agree to appear on his radio program. He asked may why. I said:

Professionals across multiple scientific fields — geologists, biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, and climatologists — have published work explaining why a literal, global Noah-style flood is scientifically impossible. Their objections come from hard physical limits (amount of water on Earth), biological realities (species diversity and genetics), and the absence of geological or archaeological evidence.

For you to believe that the Noah story is true according to the Bible, you would have to discount the education of highly educated professionals. Some of them have PhDs. In their field. They are published and well respected. What chance do you think I have of convincing you of anything? You have faith. Many believe that faith is a virtue. I never got that. If faith is believing despite the evidence. I don’t need it and I don’t believe it is a virtue. In fact, I believe that it is quite the opposite.

Conclusion

Every day is an opportunity for a better tomorrow.

Tags: Separation of Church & State  ·  Secular Humanism  ·  First Amendment  ·  Arizona

AZAtheist.com