National healthcare moves forward. Three cheers for more govt continue.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Cliff,

Just because you have money doesn't mean those wonderful, benevolent insurance companies will sell you insurance. Ever heard of "Pre-existing conditions?" I've been through this with my family's health insurance. If they do consent to insure you, they'll exclude your pre-existing condition....usually the reason you need insurance. Then there's the matter of insurers dropping you if you get sick. You may hate government, but I defy you to show how these vultures who profit from the misery of others are preferable.

[USMCJG]

Cliff,

Just because you have money doesn't mean those wonderful, benevolent insurance companies will sell you insurance. Ever heard of "Pre-existing conditions?" I've been through this with my family's health insurance. If they do consent to insure you, they'll exclude your pre-existing condition....usually the reason you need insurance. Then there's the matter of insurers dropping you if you get sick.

I'm sorry to hear that member(s) of your family have preexisting medical conditions and are unable to get insurance. If the health care bill exclusively provided for those that were unable to get insurance in the private sector, then it wouldn't be nearly as objectionable. But that's not the point of the current nationalized health care bill. It's not just about providing for the healthcare of those who are uninsurable or are too poor to afford health insurance(Isn't this what Medicaid is for?). It's about control. Controlling what kind of coverage you have to have(and pay for, and fining you if you CHOOSE to roll the dice and not have insurance or to have insurance that the government does not approve of), controlling how much doctors and hospitals are allowed to charge for their services, controlling which procedures you will and will not be allowed to have. Of course if you want free health care the best thing to do would be to immigrate to Mexico, renounce your US citizenship, and then slip across the border back into the US. BAM- free health care.

I have no illusions that the insurance companies are "wonderful" or "benevolent", they are in business in a supposedly FREE MARKET to make a profit. We are taxed out the wazoo already and we'll wind up paying big for this health care plan. If they want to make this completely optional- you can choose if you want/need government health care and be taxed for it accordingly, or you can choose to have whatever insurance you want, or you can choose to have no insurance at all without any fines, taxes, or other penalties, and you can do all of this without government interference in free enterprise- then I'm okay with it. But if the government is going to tell free people what they must have and free enterprise what they must charge, then I'm sorry but that's socialism not liberty. Now if you want to talk about setting maximum limits on civil court awards for medical malpractice, thereby greatly reducing the cost of malpractice insurance and, by extension, the cost of medical care as a whole, then I might be agreeable to that. I'd also favor stiffer penalties and fines for people who commit insurance fraud, which would lower the costs of all forms of insurance.

You may hate government, but I defy you to show how these vultures who profit from the misery of others are preferable.

First, I don't hate government when it knows it's roll and keeps to it. I do hate government when it's oversteps it's bounds and tramples on the rights of free people. Second, these "vultures" have gone in to business to make a profit, and their services have proven invaluable to millions of people. If you don't mind my asking, just exactly which industries are allowed to make a profit and which ones are not?

Cliff

PS- No, I do not work in the health care industry or for an insurance company, but I am a firm believer in individual and economic freedom. If I wanted a government nanny, there are any number of countries that I could move to. But I would prefer to pursue life, liberty, and happiness on my own, taking my own risks and accepting the consequences, without unreasonable government restrictions and controls.

[leroy]

Cliff,

Just because you have money doesn't mean those wonderful, benevolent insurance companies will sell you insurance. Ever heard of "Pre-existing conditions?" I've been through this with my family's health insurance. If they do consent to insure you, they'll exclude your pre-existing condition....usually the reason you need insurance. Then there's the matter of insurers dropping you if you get sick. You may hate government, but I defy you to show how these vultures who profit from the misery of others are preferable.

Ralph:_____________

I grew up in a family in which there was no health insurance until my mom and dad went to work with a company that was forward thinking and prosperous enough to offer it to their employees. That was about 1955. Before that, most no one had insurance. Don't ever forget that insurance is a PERK that you BUY. Not a RIGHT that you are ENTITLED TO. Our culture is so attuned to hearing about all these so called "rights" that it is now customary for most everyone to think of healthcare as a "right". This simply is not so; and never was. The idea that you are "entitled" to healthcare coverage is a bogus idea. It is, in fact, a socialist proposition that has been advanced by the political class who are buying votes with it, the unions who look for more benefits for their members, and activists who do not want to start an insurance company to cover folks; but would rather demand that others do what they want.

I know that it is always a bad deal when bad things like pre-existing conditions occur in families that cause the cost of health insurance to go way high, and i have sypathy for it. That sympathy does not translate into a death wish to re-do a private sector industry and make it like the socialist healthcare systems in Canada and much of Western Europe. Government intrusion never solves problems in any private sector area that it meddles in. It is my firm belief that the main problem with healthcare today is the government meddling that has gone up to now.

It is also my firm belief that this country is at a critical juncture in it's history. We are seeing the flower of the 60's hippy socialist revolution in full bloom. These people are simply not americans, nor do they believe in the principles outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are socialists who seek to remake this country into their own evil image. The banking takeover, the car maker bailout, and the healthcare proposal are evidence that they have no regard for private property rights nor the capitalist system. The fact is that the healthcare issue is a lot bigger than just providing healthcare to everybody. At it's core, it is about socialism and vote buying. It is about people being led around like children and selling their birthright for a little percieved blessing.

There may well be some "insurance vultures" out there who are "profitting from misery". It is important to remember that they didn't cause the misery. The fact that most people will characterize legitimate companies (which are, in fact regulated by the US Government and the individual states) as vultures helps to validate my observation that the demigogs are winning the debate about what this country stands for. I do not believe that "government" anything is preferable to what we have now. Whatever the government gives today it can take away tomorrow.

I think USMCJG's observations are dead right. The healthcare system needs some correction; but i guarantee that what these soclialist demigogues have in mind is not preferable to what the "vultures" are doing now.

This little speech aint meant to be an attack or even an argument; it's meant to be something that causes you and others to think about the principles this country was founded on. Private property rights are the foundation of all our freedoms. If the government can take any one of them away, they can and will take the others.

Food for thought,

LEROY

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Leroy,

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe healthcare can be viewed in the same light as other for-profit businesses. I can live without an electric toothbrush or a new car, but if I'm told my kid will die without some medical procedure I can't afford while my rich neighbor is able to get the same thing for his kid....that's beyond the pale. Two nights ago on channel 4 I saw a middle aged man who'd had a successful heart transplant but could not afford the $2500 a month for medication to keep his body from rejecting the new heart. He said he'd be out of money in a month...then he'd die. The political truth is, the American people have had enough of these kinds of stories and will no longer tolerate a situation where if you're rich you live, and if you're poor with the same condition you die. We've lost our big auto companies because they can't compete with foreign companies who don't have to provide health care for their workers. The tide is turning. The American Medical Association who came up with the term "socialized medicine" in the early 50's when Truman wanted universal health care just endorsed the house Democratic plan. An association of drug manufacturers is running new "Harry and Louise" ads, this time in favor of healthcare reform. My bottom line...if we are truly a Christian nation, we have an obligation to care for the poor and sick. Maybe Jesus was a "socialist" by your definition?

[Guest 44M]

Health insurance is not a necessity or right

as long as you and your kids are healthy I guess, but as soon as you luse your job and insurance I guarantee you, you will look at this a little different. Same was with a people making a smarta$$ comments about homeowners who lost their houses..they said; "well, it`s your own fault you lost your house, you got more than you can pay"....this kind of comments have to be ones of the most idiotic comments there is, and they always come from people who are doing fine at this perticular moment and who are so ignorant that they don`t understand that life can change in a second, you may luse your $50.000 per year job today and tomorow you wont be able to pay your motgage anymore, is that your fault? did you take more credit that you can afford it? these days people are very cold, with no compassion or and feelings for their countryman..one moment they will scream loud and bang in their chest about a patriotism and the next moment they will criticise theur own people telling them stupidity like the one above or blaming them for lusing their houses not even knowing the surcomstances....sad world we live in these days, very sad ....some would fight for the right to own a full auto machinegun because that is "right" and at the same time will say that health care is not the "right"..... how is your full auto AK47 a necessity....? some people are either that stupid and ignorant or they are just flat out retarded...

Db

Edited July 17, 2009 by 44M

[Smith]

as long as you and your kids are healthy I guess, but as soon as you luse your job and insurance I guarantee you, you will look at this a little different. Same was with a people making a smarta$$ comments about homeowners who lost their houses..they said; "well, it`s your own fault you lost your house, you got more than you can pay"....this kind of comments have to be ones of the most idiotic comments there is, and they always come from people who are doing fine at this perticular moment and who are so ignorant that they don`t understand that life can change in a second, you may luse your $50.000 per year job today and tomorow you wont be able to pay your motgage anymore, is that your fault? did you take more credit that you can afford it? these days people are very cold, with no compassion or and feelings for their countryman..one moment they will scream loud and bang in their chest about a patriotism and the next moment they will criticise theur own people telling them stupidity like the one above or blaming them for lusing their houses not even knowing the surcomstances....sad world we live in these days, very sad ....some would fight for the right to own a full auto machinegun because that is "right" and at the same time will say that health care is not the "right"..... how is your full auto AK47 a necessity....? some people are either that stupid and ignorant or they are just flat out retarded...

Db

Yes, it is their fault on both accounts. To say i lost my job their was nothing I could do, is assinine. Do people not plan ahead in case the unfortunate happens? No most of these folks spend like their current income will last. Statistically American spend on average 114% of our income. Who's fault is it they did not plan ahead? Mine? Why should I have to pay for somebodies lack of planning? I live in a small house, work 2-3 jobs, and self insure. I plan ahead for my family not yours. Now there are cases where no amount of planning could cover the loss. Ideally in those cases you would hope there would be famileis to help out, church's to assist and MANY do, I handle it daily.

Short story with a good example. I was recoding a depositions the other day and during the break teh two lawyers and former healthcare CEO (deposed) were discussing how different young lawyers are today. They said in the old days it was cuthroat with everyone trying to make partner because that was the only true job security they had. Nowdays they want to be mid level employees and feel entitled to cushy intern jobs right out of law school. I found it immensly interesting to hear them discuss the difference in employee attitude of the current genereation. This is the problem with helathcare, housing, economy, etc. Unmotivated, sel righteous, entitled, softies, who think life shouldn't hurt and they deserve more than what their parents had

[USMCJG]

some people are either that stupid and ignorant or they are just flat out retarded...

Db

And some people think that others should foot the bill for them because, for whatever reason, they can't do it for themselves. I lost my job last year and was lucky enough to find another one. I make about half what I made before and yet I still pay all of my bills and provide for myself. I had to make a lot of sacrifices, but I still manage. I don't understand what makes some people feel that they deserve to be given things that other people earned. You do know that the people you are counting on to save and provide for us during these difficult economic times are exactly the same people that brought about this situation in the first place don't you? The same people whose "business" is trillions of dollars in debt? Do you not see the irony in that?

Cliff

Edited July 17, 2009 by USMCJG

[ukerduker]

I saw this tonight. Not that is surprised me.

Health bill 'outlaws private insurance'

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

A reminder for the Christians on this thread--

The Christian's Duty to the Poor

What follows here is a quotation of a part of a sermon that John Chrysostom, perhaps the greatest preacher of the early church gave on a portion of Hebrews and Mt. 5.2.

"'Give to him who begs from you and do not refuse him who would borrow from you.' Stretch out your hand; let it not be closed up. We have not been constituted examiners into others' lives, for then we should have compassion on no one. When you call upon Gold, why do you say, 'Remember not my sins?' So, even if that person is a great sinner, make this allowance in his case also, and do not remember his sins. It is a season of kindness, not of strict enquiry; of mercy, not of account" Err on the side of compassion, not caution.

"The frost is hard, and the poor man is cast out in rags, well-nigh dead, with his teeth chattering. Both by his looks and his air you should be moved. And yet, you pass by, warm and full of drink. How do you expect that God should deliver you when in misfortune? And often you will say to yourself, 'If I had found one that had done many wrong things, I would have forgiven him, so won't God forgive me?' Do not say this. You neglect the one who has done you no wrong, yet you would be able to help. How will he forgive you when you are sinning against him?"

"And it does not even stop here. Immediately accusations are brought against the suppliant. For why does he not work, you say? And why is he to be maintained in idleness? But, tell me, is it by working that you have what you have? Did you not receive it as an inheritance from your fathers? And even if you work, is this a reason why you should reproach another? Do you not hear what Paul says? For after saying 'If anyone will not work, let him not eat,' he says 'Do not be weary in well doing.' But what do they say? He is an impostor. What do you say, o man? Do you call him an impostor for the sake of a single loaf of bread or a garment? But you say, 'He will sell it immediately.' And do you manage all your affairs well? But what? Are all poor through idleness? Is no one so from calamity or shipwreck? None from lawsuits? None from being robbed? None from dangers? None from illness? None from other difficulties? If however we hear anyone bewailing such evils and crying out loud and looking up naked toward heaven, with long hair and clad in rags, at once we call him 'The impostor! That deceiver! The swindler!' Are you not ashamed? Whom do you call impostor? Do you accuse the man or give him a hard time? But you say 'he has means and pretends'. This is a charge against yourself, not against him. He knows he has to deal with the cruel, with wild beasts rather than rational persons. He knows that even if he tells his pitable story, no one pays any attention. And on this account he is forced to assume an even more miserable guise, that he may melt your heart. If we see a person coming to beg in a respectable dress, 'This is an impostor' you say, 'and he comes in this way that he may be supposed to be of good birth.' If we see one in the contrary apparel, we reproach him too. What then are they to do. Oh the cruelty, oh the inhumanity! And why, you say, 'do they expose their maimed limbs?' Do you not see it is because of you? If we were truly compassionate, they would have no need of these artifices. If they persuaded us at the first appeal, they would not have contrived thesed devices. Who is there so wretched as to be willing to behave in an unseemly way, as to be willing to make public lamentations, with his wife destitute of clothing, with his children, to sprinkle ashes on himself? How much worse than poverty are these things?" Surely the lose of all personal dignity is more humilitating than poverty.

John Chrysostom-- Homily on Hebrews 11.7-9.

[Guest thorn]

And Jesus said - Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

[Smith]

Ralph he also left out the requirements of assistance that Paul laid out for widows and the needy in the church letters as well as Jesus teachings of working and the results of not doing so.Not to mention the levitical mandates on the issue. Not to sound hard but Christians and liberals love to tout mercy and judicial blindness and leave responsibility and consequences unmentioned. Probably for self presevation. To be wholly one or the other is as immoral as doing neither. You can not have one without the other. To do so would be to deny the very person of God himself.

That being said this has nothing to do with health care. It is not immoral to expect people to be wise and prudent. Is food a right? I use it more and need it more than I ever will health care. Do I buy food insurance or expect someone else to provide it when I don't have what I think I should? Is it immoral when I have to buy Walmarts Value brand instead of the Hagen Das like the "rich" people do? The answer is no and it sounds absurd to think this way...... yet here we are. Health care is a service like no other, but a service none the less. It is not a right, it is not my job to provide it for you, and I reject the notion that the government has ANY role in it.

[leroy]

Leroy,

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe healthcare can be viewed in the same light as other for-profit businesses. .... My bottom line...if we are truly a Christian nation, we have an obligation to care for the poor and sick. Maybe Jesus was a "socialist" by your definition?

Ralph:

You have raised the level of this discussion to its highest possible point. It is my firm belief that once these issues are answered, the other issues become crystal clear. I want to try to speak to your observations and provide my understanding of this most important point in the kindest, most Christian way possible. Much of what will be said can be taken as being preachy but it is not meant to be.

The most important point in this discussion is what did Jesus teach and what did He mean when He said; “You must be born again.†Being “born again†is a process whereby God gives us the free gift of salvation that changes our inner being (our heart, for lack of a better term) and we become new creatures. This “new creature†is called a Christian or follower of Christ. From that changed heart there develops a desire to do the things that Jesus did; that is, tho follow His great example. Jesus taught that benevolence was an INDIVIDUAL act. When Jesus spoke to the rich young ruler, HE said to “sell your possessions and give them to the poorâ€. This is clearly an INDIVIDUAL command. The Scriptures do, indeed, teach that benelevonce is the result of a right standing with God. The Scriptures also teach the concept of private property. The issue of private property is important enough that God included them in the Ten Commandments.

‘Thou shall not steal†is an endorsement of the rights of individuals to property. The Scriptures also teach that work and honest business enterprise that springs from work is honorable. In summary, Jesus taught that benevolence was an INDIVIDUAL act of kindness; not an act to be mandated by government. He also taught the right to private property.

Regarding the issue of Jesus being a Socialist. I believe that nothing could be farther from the truth. However, there have been those who have taught that Christianity in action is actually socialism. The foremost of them have been the black liberation theologists here in the US and certain of the Catholic Orders who have preached the “social gospelâ€. The fact is that socialism is the very anthesis of Christianity. Christianity teaches that God is God and that good works (benevolence) flows from a right heart on an INDIVIDUAL basis as the result of wanting to do what Jesus did. The important thing to remember her is that it is an INDIVIDUAL act; not an act that is mandated by the state.

The fact is that Karl Marx was an atheist. The basic premise of socialism is that the state is god. Christianity (and Judaism) teaches that God is God. Socialism postulates that all property belongs to the state and benevolence flows from the state. Christianity teaches that everything belongs to God who gives it to us freely and expects us to be good stewards of that property. That means “loving our brother as ourselvesâ€. Socialism makes the pronouncement of: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.†This requirement is a compulsory mandate of the state that owns everything. Socialism takes forcibly by power of the state from the individual and gives to those who do not work. Christianity teaches that benevolence is an INDIVIDUAL act of kindness, and that people are entitled to the private property resulting from their individual labors, and are free to distribute them as they see fit.

Casual observation will prove that socialism never works because people are bad and not good. People run governments, not God. If socialism worked, the Soviet Union would still be around and would be an economic powerhouse and a worker’s paradise. It’s not around anymore. More than that, we hear about the six million Jews that Hitler and the Nazis executed. Joseph Stalin was an ex-divinity student from the Russian Orthodox Church and a pupil of Marx and Lenin. He killed sixty million people and confiscated their property in the name of socialism. That is a far cry from the teachings of Christianity. It is not possible to point to a single instance in history where socialism improved the lot on any people, or where it worked. On the contrary, it always leads to totalitarianism and persecution of the very folks it was supposed to help.

Bottom line: Christianity and socialism are incompatible. They are as far away from each other as it is possible to be.

RE: “ IF we are truly a Christian nation… The fact is that we are not a Christian nation. We have long ago abandoned Christian principles and codified wrong doing into our system of laws. I will grant that we are a nation whose founding documents incorporated Judeo-Christian principles; even invoking God into them. General adherence to those principles has faded away, and we could have a pretty long-winded converstation about whether they were ever the norm. The fact is that we are far away from God and His principles in our government and society.

Some of what has been said in this little dissertation may be offensive to some. It is not intended to be. I want to restate in the kindest way possible that it aint meant to be preachy. It is a heart-felt opinion that I firmly believe to be a truth. Enforced compassion will always fail or turn in to an oppressive burden because it does not flow from a changed heart. Today’s politicians are actively seeking to mandate enforced compassion just as they did with Welfare, not for the general good, but to buy votes and make people serfs. They are cynics who worship the god of power. Do not be deceived, they are not the least bit interested in the ‘general welfareâ€.

So, as Sean Connery so famously said in the great movie, “The Untouchablesâ€: “Thus endeth the lesson.â€

Food for thought.

LEROY

[LagerHead]

I haven't read every post, so forgive me if I am repeating someone else's.

Another twist was added to Obama's takeover of health care. Page 16 of the 1,000+ page bill basically states that you are, as Obama promised, free to keep your current insurance if you like it. But here's the rub: as long as you continue to work for you current employer until you drop dead. If you leave that employer and their insurance plan you MUST, by law, sign up for the government plan. No more private insurance for you, sucker!

So the net effect of this bill will to COMPLETELY do away with private insurance, 100%. This nation will have 100% socialized medicine and no other option if this plan passes.

So, now we have socialized banks, socialized auto industry, and we're about to have socialized medicine. Can someone PLEASE explain to me how this is not a move toward socialism? I must be completely off my rocker to not be able to understand it.

[ukerduker]

It's like we awoke one morning to a bizzaro world, where up is down, white is black, and you ultimately have no choices in your future.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Leroy,

If behaving in a Christian way is an individual matter unrelated to government, why the desire of Christians to outlaw abortion? Why do Christians seek to have the 10 Commandments displayed in courthouses? Why do so many fundamentalist Christians seek public office? As we all know, it's possible to find passages in the bible to support both sides of most arguments, but the things that separate the teachings of Christ from those of the old testament are the ideas of concern for the poor, forgiveness, atonement, loving thy neighbor as thy self, turning the other cheek...my view anyhow.

To fully understand socialism, and why it took hold in places like Russia, you have to understand the system it replaced. Under the Czars, all weath and power was concentrated in a few hands who flaunted it shamelessly while the general populace was allowed to starve and suffer. Until we reach that kind of situation in the U.S. we don't have to worry about a Soiviet style socialist revolution. What so many refer disparagingly to as "socialism" these days is really more akin to the idea of "the commons." In colonial times when villages were established they would often have a central piece of land that was to be shared and used for the benefit of all for growing food, pasturing livestock, drawing water from a spring. There was a shared duty to maintain it, and rules for it's use so that it wouldn't be damaged, and no one person could use it to an unfair degree to the detriment of others. Technically it was a "government" entity, and some no doubt grumbled about having to help maintain it. The point I'm getting to is, there are some things government can and should do to promote the general welfare, facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maintaining a military is one accepted by conservatives, maintaining an interstate highway system, controlling air traffic, insuring the safety of food and drugs, etc. I can't understand why people conflate things that reflect a fundamental concern for our fellow man (enabling people to get health care when they need it) with the evils of Soviet Communism...the outlawing of private property and religion, the absence of civil rights, freedom of speech, press, association, right to bear arms etc. It seems to be a highly irrational fear promoted by monied interests (drug and insurance companies in particular). If you "follow the money" it will lead you there, and to the NRA, and to Limbaugh, Hannity and company. My 2 cents...

[USMCJG]

Leroy,

If behaving in a Christian way is an individual matter unrelated to government, why the desire of Christians to outlaw abortion? Why do Christians seek to have the 10 Commandments displayed in courthouses? Why do so many fundamentalist Christians seek public office? As we all know, it's possible to find passages in the bible to support both sides of most arguments, but the things that separate the teachings of Christ from those of the old testament are the ideas of concern for the poor, forgiveness, atonement, loving thy neighbor as thy self, turning the other cheek...my view anyhow.

To fully understand socialism, and why it took hold in places like Russia, you have to understand the system it replaced. Under the Czars, all weath and power was concentrated in a few hands who flaunted it shamelessly while the general populace was allowed to starve and suffer. Until we reach that kind of situation in the U.S. we don't have to worry about a Soiviet style socialist revolution. What so many refer disparagingly to as "socialism" these days is really more akin to the idea of "the commons." In colonial times when villages were established they would often have a central piece of land that was to be shared and used for the benefit of all for growing food, pasturing livestock, drawing water from a spring. There was a shared duty to maintain it, and rules for it's use so that it wouldn't be damaged, and no one person could use it to an unfair degree to the detriment of others. Technically it was a "government" entity, and some no doubt grumbled about having to help maintain it. The point I'm getting to is, there are some things government can and should do to promote the general welfare, facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maintaining a military is one accepted by conservatives, maintaining an interstate highway system, controlling air traffic, insuring the safety of food and drugs, etc. I can't understand why people conflate things that reflect a fundamental concern for our fellow man (enabling people to get health care when they need it) with the evils of Soviet Communism...the outlawing of private property and religion, the absence of civil rights, freedom of speech, press, association, right to bear arms etc. It seems to be a highly irrational fear promoted by monied interests (drug and insurance companies in particular). If you "follow the money" it will lead you there, and to the NRA, and to Limbaugh, Hannity and company. My 2 cents...

Do you have any concept of what this new health care bill entails? It is NOT about helping the poor! We already have Medicaid which is intended to provide for the poor. This is not a bill that seeks to expand Medicaid(which I would not necessarily oppose, it would depend on the wording of the bill- if there were one), it seeks to outlaw private insurance, individual choice in health insurance, to control private enterprise(you could argue that this is a good thing, but history has shown us that government control of private industry is NEVER a "good" thing), and to create government control over all things health care related. This is not about charity, it is about control. Some people will just read a headline that says-" NATIONAL HEALTHCARE WILL PROVIDE FOR EVERYONE" and trust that this will be for the best, without ever doing any research into what the bill will ACTUALLY do.

Cliff

[Guest thorn]

If behaving in a Christian way is an individual matter unrelated to government, why the desire of Christians to outlaw abortion?

How do you reason that taking from another for your well being is in any way a Christian attribute? Clinton dodged the draft for his well being, is that somehow a God given right? Do you think Christ looks at someone differently whether or not they get a liver replacement, cancer treatment, or???

On abortion - Because it's a moral issue not a legal one and I do not believe that immorality should be legislated.

Why do Christians seek to have the 10 Commandments displayed in courthouses?

What would the law be without morality? Could there be a better time to note the 10th Commandment.

Why do so many fundamentalist Christians seek public office?

So many Christians do not and there is no parallel to be drawn.

As we all know, it's possible to find passages in the bible to support both sides of most arguments, but the things that separate the teachings of Christ from those of the old testament are the ideas of concern for the poor, forgiveness, atonement, loving thy neighbor as thy self, turning the other cheek...my view anyhow.

It's not an A La Carte menu.

To fully understand socialism, and why it took hold in places like Russia, you have to understand the system it replaced. Under the Czars, all weath and power was concentrated in a few hands who flaunted it shamelessly while the general populace was allowed to starve and suffer. Until we reach that kind of situation in the U.S. we don't have to worry about a Soiviet style socialist revolution.

This is only a good argument if you think "It'll never happen here". Open your car door, read the label and tell us who sets the standard? It's along the lines of "they'll never take our guns" The answer is maybe not now but they do manage to find people that will and have.

In addition, I'd argue that those systems were not replaced but merely reworked by the same people where as what we are looking at in America is in fact replacing the very foundation.

What so many refer disparagingly to as "socialism" these days is really more akin to the idea of "the commons." In colonial times when villages were established they would often have a central piece of land that was to be shared and used for the benefit of all for growing food, pasturing livestock, drawing water from a spring. There was a shared duty to maintain it, and rules for it's use so that it wouldn't be damaged, and no one person could use it to an unfair degree to the detriment of others. Technically it was a "government" entity, and some no doubt grumbled about having to help maintain it.

It is important to note that you mention failed systems. we need some things fixed but America has hardly failed. Further, many of the problems are the government itself.

The point I'm getting to is, there are some things government can and should do to promote the general welfare, facilitate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maintaining a military is one accepted by conservatives, maintaining an interstate highway system, controlling air traffic, insuring the safety of food and drugs, etc. I can't understand why people conflate things that reflect a fundamental concern for our fellow man (enabling people to get health care when they need it) with the evils of Soviet Communism...the outlawing of private property and religion, the absence of civil rights, freedom of speech, press, association, right to bear arms etc.

The things you note are given by the things you note. I'd argue that the FDA has anything to do with anything other than regulation.

You look at healthcare and modern medicine as if you deserve it no matter what the expense. It cost money to develop and produce. Unfortunately passionate tears of compassion are not made of gold.

It seems to be a highly irrational fear promoted by monied interests (drug and insurance companies in particular). If you "follow the money" it will lead you there, and to the NRA, and to Limbaugh, Hannity and company. My 2 cents...

This is a leftist argument at best based solely on the belief that profit is evil.

[Oh Shoot]

...

On abortion - Because it's a moral issue not a legal one and I do not believe that immorality should be legislated. ....

What would the law be without morality? .....

So morality shouldn't be legislated, but morality should determine law?

Umm, well, er, hmm....

- OS

[Guest thorn]

So morality shouldn't be legislated, but morality should determine law?

Umm, well, er, hmm....

- OS

Again, I do not believe that immorality should be legislated.

[Oh Shoot]

Again, I do not believe that immorality should be legislated.

I just don't get your bent.

Defining "morality" also defines "immorality".

Legislation by/of either is legislation by/of the other.

- OS

[Guest thorn]

I just don't get your bent.

- OS

What's a "bent"?

...................................................................................

I was addressing his question not the one you contrived. I'll quote both here again:

"If behaving in a Christian way is an individual matter unrelated to government, why the desire of Christians to outlaw abortion?"

My response:

"On abortion - Because it's a moral issue not a legal one and I do not believe that immorality should be legislated."

I'm hardly making a blanket statement or trying to define morality. It's more of a simple response regarding the issue of abortion and the specific question that was at hand. Abortion was legalized and has become socially acceptable making it morally OK in the view of many. Tax dollars are taken to fund it while it is encouraged as part of legislation.

I suppose you're right to critique me on my statement but not for a lack of understanding only for the lack of me not addressing you in my statement prior to your response. Based solely on you and your issue, I'll say that morality can/has legislated but legislation does not moralize. I would go as far as saying in the case of abortion that legislation has in affect demoralized. For your sake I should have said "I do not believe that immorality should be legislated as being ok or acceptable." but will add that now for clarification.

Regarding the context and your critique of my statement it amounts to about the same as me using "Umm, well, er, hmm...." as a broad scope of your views, beliefs, understanding, and/or values...

Edited July 18, 2009 by thorn

[Guest grimel]

Sorry, but that is not a "source" in any conventional use of the word.

Which part of stats taken from the US census do you not understand?

[Oh Shoot]

What's a "bent"?...

In this context, an inclination to think or react in a certain direction.

It seemed as though you were both espousing the notion that law should champion morality but somehow not address its opposite.

As for your rather detailed explanation, thanks. I get it, though I disagree with your and (I'm pretty sure, the majority of TGOers') take on abortion.

But that's even further off topic than we already are, so back to Comrade Obama's New World Order Health Care Socialist Agenda. My statement about that echoes my first post in this thread - if it's going to happen, I hope I get a better deal than I can find now.

- OS

[Guest grimel]

Source?

Any honest place (even the liberal think tanks) that uses actual Census data. You can even view US Census data on your very own monitor. Be prepared to realize you've been lied to by Obama and the Dems.

If you ungin the numbers, the actual number of uninsured who don't choose to be uninsured is somewhere around 10 million. Not nearly as expensive to "fix" as making an entire new Fed Gov controlled health care screwup (isn't medicare/medicade and VA enough for one lifetime?).

[Guest grimel]

Cliff,

Just because you have money doesn't mean those wonderful, benevolent insurance companies will sell you insurance. Ever heard of "Pre-existing conditions?" I've been through this with my family's health insurance. If they do consent to insure you, they'll exclude your pre-existing condition....usually the reason you need insurance. Then there's the matter of insurers dropping you if you get sick. You may hate government, but I defy you to show how these vultures who profit from the misery of others are preferable.

Please show me where it is the job of the Federal Government to provide healthcare.

Oh, and just so you know, the insurance companies are in business to make a profit for their shareholders.

How are they preferable? Well, they aren't trying to redistribute the wealth in this country. They aren't trying to break the best health care system in the world. They aren't trying to take control of 1/6 of the US economy when they have shown they can't run a whorehouse with a liquor lic and turn a profit (see Mustang Ranch -

By 1990, the IRS was fed up with his tax shenanigans and seized the ranch, putting the federal government in the unique position of running a brothel. It failed and the ranch was padlocked for the first time.)