Universal Health Care

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Dave, that doesn't make much sense. Because right now in America there are tens of thousands of elderly people barely able to buy food because they cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Every year an estimated 18,000 Americans die because they are not granted coverage or cannot afford insurance that will help them get the care or treatments they need to survive. Bro, numbers of cases have been brought up before the Senate and have engaged the insurance companies in lawsuits because their loved one died. There are another 25,000 Americans who declare bankruptcy every year due to the inability to pay their medical bills.

Funny...none of this seems to bother you one bit. I'll tell you what it's really about...it's about the almighty dollar.

This confirms that you are neither reading nor comprehending. You are merely regurgitating the same stuff over and over again. Including your "laugh line."

The Law of God commanded land owners to leave the corners and edges of their fields for the destitute. It was a civil law of Moses. If this is theft, Jesus is a sinner...because Jesus and the disciples freely gleaned corn, with unwashed hands, in a field belonging to another. If Jesus is a sinner, your faith is in vain.

Utter nonsense This is totally unrelated.

Also let's read what Paul said in Romans 13,

" 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." - Romans 13:1-7 (NIV)

In this passage we have a number of truths. First, Government, like the family, is an ordained institution of God. And, Governments are established and set up by God. If one rebels against the rule of law they are in rebellion against the governing institution appointed by God bringing judgment upon themselves.

This is farcical. Nobody is suggesting civil nor violent disobedience. We have a new paradigm, unimaginable in bible times, where the individual is sovereign and participates in the making of the rules. In America, if we believe that a law is in error, we are FREE to work to revoke it. See prohibition. See slavery.

Nobody contending against your destructive socialist views currently defies the government via non-payment of taxes because they are against supporting social security, welfare, the war on drugs, or government schools.

You are, in essence, telling us to shut up and obey the law BEFORE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IS THE LAW. This is either disingenuous or discombobulated.

This kind of thinking is dangerous to freedom of expression, action, and even freedom of thought. I showed you how you have put the cart before the horse, and are extolling the virtues of YET ANOTHER system that causes mankind to work against his own best interests. Even without religious connotations this is untenable in the long term. It has been proven untenable. And yet folks still promote more of it.

Thank God we are free to debate these things both before and after they are implemented. We've poured billions into the machine of government schools, and our students perform more poorly than ever. We've poured billions into the war on drugs, yet our nation's drug problems persist. We've received the warnings about the coming insolvency of social security for 20 years. There is plenty of evidence that federal social programs are ineffective at best and often make the problem worse, all the while wasting BILLIONS of dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) Yet some folks point to them anyhow as the reason to start yet another one?

One need no fear of rulers if they obey the laws.

The combination of state, local, and federal statutes are so convoluted NOW, largely due to muddled collectivist thinking, that it is impossible to obey all the laws. Societal order is kept via selective enforcement - yet another broad avenue for corruption.

The governing authorities will commend those who do what's right and obey the laws. Governing authorities are servants called to do good for the people. But law breakers have reason to fear because governing authorities have the authority to use force, the sword, to punish them. Governments serve God by punishing law breakers. Therefore it is necessary to obey the government, not only because you may be punished but because in doing so you will have a clear conscience. HEY, this is why you are to pay taxes. Because the governing authorities are the servants of God and give their lives to public service. You are to give what you owe. If you owe taxes, pay taxes. If revenue, pay revenue. If respect, then respect. If honor, then honor.

Do you believe that this paragraph should persuade ANYBODY, law-abiding or not, to become excited about and supportive of yet another tax?
Do you believe government creates wealth?
Where does the government get all this money for these programs? Do they just print it?
What increases the federal budget?
What increases the GDP?
What makes the economy grow?
Is income earned or distributed?
When the majority of a man's efforts to increase himself are confiscated by government, what incentive does he have to produce by his efforts more wealth for the taking?

[ChristopherHall]

Trickledown,

A grandmother is unable to pay for both her food and her much needed medication. She can afford the food without causing her economic ruin but not the medication. Does she have the right to medication that could save her life? You're the civil magistrate she appeals to in fear filled tears. What do you tell her?

A young mother of three is in need of a liver transplant. A liver that appears to be a match has been found and is ready for her. Her insurance company denies her coverage based on the fact that research is relatively new in treating her disease. So when applying for coverage for the transplant her insurance company denies coverage for the procedure on the grounds that it is "experimental". (Remember, insurance companies have an entire staff trained on how to find ways NOT to cover treatments people need to save the company money.) The doctors are all confident this may save her life. She dies while wrangling this out in court. The family appeals to you as a civil magistrate to implement a national insurance that will not deny coverage to protect profit. Her daughter is dead. She weeps asking you to save another mother this pain. What do you do? What do you tell her?

[ReformedDave]

CH, you are the king of cut and paste. You don't answer direct questions and you have no hermanutical basis that has been proven to not be inconsistent, arbitrary, and unbiblical. You have no framework or set of presuppositions that hold up your philosophy. What you do have is a lot of bluster, the propensity not to listen, the extreme use of strawmen, and the ability not to answer questions. It makes it very difficult to converse with you in a meaningful way...if that is what you want.

[ChristopherHall]

Dave, what did you think about the article definition of "biblical justice"?

[augustianian]

Universal Healthcare..........Hmmmmmmmm........the government using taxpayers money to supply healthcare for all.

Socialism-a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Now...all we need are anecdotal stories to make the public more pliable to accept such a theory...WOW ! ! Is that not the modus operandi of those who call for universal healthcare??

(Of course the next move will be the strident remarks such as......"What?? [feigning incredulity] you don't care about people?????????")

Puhlease,
a

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

Dave, what did you think about the article definition of "biblical justice"?

In general I have no problem with the majority of what he wrote. I will say he sounds a bit dispensational,(I could be wrong), but you cannot take what he writes and apply the Scripture as you please without a context and rules of hermeneutics. Some of what he quoted was and/or will be fulfilled by Christ, some applies today. We must do careful exegesis and application.

BTW, you keep using the term "social darwinism'. As one who hates what Herbert Spencer stood for(at least his Darwinian suppositions) I don't see the connection. And please, as I have stated before, I'm neither a member of either major party.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

This confirms that you are neither reading nor comprehending. You are merely regurgitating the same stuff over and over again. Including your "laugh line."

It’s the truth. You don’t care if someone dies merely because they cannot afford health care. You don’t care that the elderly are choosing between food and medication. You don’t care if 18,000 Americans die every year because they cannot afford the health care they need. In your mind it’s just another weak, sick, person dying off. As long as it doesn’t cost you anything you’ll feel sad…but hey…ultimately you don’t care. At least that’s the attitude you’re displaying. Me and others are advocating a way to do SOMETHING to help so many that are hurting so badly. You’re only presenting why your stand against anyone doing SOMETHING. You’re not presenting REALISTIC alternatives with which we can relieve the elderly and insure that all Americans are covered with AFFORDABLE health insurance. Don’t just tell me what you’re against….tell me what you’re for. So far, all I have to go on is that you’re against anyone doing anything that might cost you more in taxes….even if the system would allow YOU to bring home more of your own money due to the elimination of fees, deductibles, and co-pays! LOL Right now it sounds like you just don’t care. I’ll tell you what I’ve told people in staff meetings. Don’t give me an argument against the ideas of people willing to do SOMETHING. Give me viable and realistic alternatives.

If you don’t mind me asking you, how much is your health insurance premium that you pay every month?

It’s a principle. It shows how national laws supporting those in need are found even in the Bible. How would you feel if you were a land owner and the Law of Moses required you to surrender the dropped harvest, corners, and edges of your crop to the need? Would you argue against it, calling it a Leftwing Levitical Agenda?

Nobody contending against your destructive socialist views currently defies the government via non-payment of taxes because they are against supporting social security, welfare, the war on drugs, or government schools.

My point was that taxation isn’t theft. If it were we wouldn’t be commanded to pay taxes.

You are, in essence, telling us to shut up and obey the law BEFORE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IS THE LAW. This is either disingenuous or discombobulated.

This kind of thinking is dangerous to freedom of expression, action, and even freedom of thought. I showed you how you have put the cart before the horse, and are extolling the virtues of YET ANOTHER system that causes mankind to work against his own best interests. Even without religious connotations this is untenable in the long term. It has been proven untenable. And yet folks still promote more of it.

No. My point was that should the people decide that this is best for our entire society and vote for a leader implementing a universal health insurance system covering all and benefiting all…including you (you’re premiums will drop further than the taxes you’d pay, you’d save money) it’s not theft. It’s on par with social justice.

You say it’s been “proven” untenable. Yet every Western nation has taken this route and every Western nation has no intention of using a system like that found in the United States. It’s working in Canada (Canadian Brothers here have expressed this well, are they liars?). It’s also working in France, Britain, Norway, Israel, Switzerland, Italy, and the list could go on and on and on and on. Is it expensive? Yes. But when compared to the rising premiums we’re facing, it’s actually less expensive. American spends over 16% more in the system we currently have….and less people are covered and the American population sees the doctor far less and has far more overall health problems.

TO BE CONTINUED....

[ChristopherHall]

Thank God we are free to debate these things both before and after they are implemented. We've poured billions into the machine of government schools, and our students perform more poorly than ever. We've poured billions into the war on drugs, yet our nation's drug problems persist. We've received the warnings about the coming insolvency of social security for 20 years. There is plenty of evidence that federal social programs are ineffective at best and often make the problem worse, all the while wasting BILLIONS of dollars ($1,000,000,000.00) Yet some folks point to them anyhow as the reason to start yet another one?[/b]

Ah, but again…what’s the alternative? No government schools? In Dayton Ohio the government schools did terribly. But the chartered private schools fared worse! LOL So you’re advocating what? Again all I can see in what you said is that you’re against having government schools for those who cannot afford to go to private schools. And most of the private schools would begin to experience a world of hurt if we began shipping all these students into them. You’d dissolve the public schools system causing tens of thousands of kids to not even have a chance? I see millions of kids all over the country wondering the streets without an education. That’s what I see in my mind’s eye as I read your words above. What’s the alternative? Why did so many of our founders believe in a public education?

Here’s the real problem with the schools….parents. Parents aren’t parenting. Too many kids are growing up in homes where both parent’s work just to make ends meet or have health insurance. These “latch-key kids” grow up without parental supervision. They don’t study, they’re not disciplined, they get into all kinds of trouble. Also you have millions of kids growing up in broken homes. Factor in all the drug and alcohol abuse and you have a recipe for disaster. Teachers aren’t parents. Teachers can only provide information. The problem with public schools…are parents failing to parent.

You mention how much money we’re spending on the drug war yet the problem persists. Here’s a wonderful example of what I’m trying to say with abortion. You can make something illegal and place fines and penalties on perpetrators…but it isn’t going to really change things. But the factor of addiction falls into the subject of the drug war. Again I’m going to ask you, what’s the alternative? End the war on drugs and allow the addiction to spread across the country until we’re a nation of riots, violence, and burnouts? Give me alternatives. (On a side note. If you want to see where the war on drugs will take us study Prohibition.)

The combination of state, local, and federal statutes are so convoluted NOW, largely due to muddled collectivist thinking, that it is impossible to obey all the laws. Societal order is kept via selective enforcement - yet another broad avenue for corruption.

That’s a matter of opinion. I work for a government office and often I have to navigate the “convoluted” statutes you’re talking about. I don’t believe you can lump all statutes together. You have to look at them individually.

[b] Do you believe that this paragraph should persuade ANYBODY, law-abiding or not, to become excited about and supportive of yet another tax?

If most Americans understood that the tax you speak of would allow the government to bring down their monthly premiums, eliminate their high deductibles, and their co-pays, thereby actually saving them more of their hard earned money, yes, I think most Americans would be supportive. Interestingly, the more Americans learn about universal health insurance…the more there are coming to support it. Education is a wonderful thing.

Do you believe government creates wealth?

No. Government ensures justice. And justice is a very broad concept speaking to more than just punishment of crime but also social benefits, as outlined in the Holman Dictionary’s definition of Justice.

Where does the government get all this money for these programs? Do they just print it?

No. We have programs in place that would be combined into the universal health insurance system. For example Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, OPM (and sub programs), Veterans Health Care System, etc. would all be combined into a universal insurance program. Initially this is estimated to provide over 60% of the costs necessary for the universal health insurance system. This minimizes the increase in taxation greatly. The overall coverage would allow doctors to be paid (whereas right now they take a loss passed down to you in costs and premiums). When the doctors are actually paid, the loss will not be passed to you, thereby reducing health care costs for both doctors and patients and lowering your premiums. In addition the government will negotiate prescription drug costs with drug companies reducing your costs even more. As stated above this would eliminate our high deductibles and copays. The increase in taxes would be less than what you’re now paying in rising premiums, deductibles, and copays. You’d make money by accepting the tax increase and eliminating rising premiums, deductibles, and copays. Yes…by accepting the tax increase…you bring home more of your own money. And guess what….this money would go back into the economy and boost the economy over all. Businesses would also no longer face being gouged by rising premiums. As with Canadian and French businesses, it frees them to do more business and less healthcare cost management and provision. It would remove the redundant clerical nightmare of the corporate bureaucracy with a single national electronic records system. This accounts for over 30% of present health care costs. Thus boosting the coverage power of the system itself. You’d come out keeping more of your money, business would be liberated and pay less in taxes than rising premiums, and the economy would see a boost because individuals would have more spending power.

What increases the federal budget?

I wouldn’t call what we have now a “budget”. LOL

I hope that helps you understand my position better and answers your questions. Again, don’t just argue against the SOMETHING we are considering doing. Offer REALISTIC and VIABLE alternatives and explain how they would work.

God bless.

[ChristopherHall]

One last thing, consider how this would effect the church and ministers. First, if people are saving on their insurance costs monthly. That liberates more of their income and produces the option to give even more to further the work of God, should they desire to do so. Ministers might benefit the most. Think of how many ministers with families would move into full time ministry if they were covered by a universal health insurance plan.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

One last thing, consider how this would effect the church and ministers. First, if people are saving on their insurance costs monthly. That liberates more of their income and produces the option to give even more to further the work of God, should they desire to do so

Wouldn't there be a higher tax revenue to offset the expense? Didn't I hear someone say that Obama wants to through 1 trillion dollars at the issue?