McCain and Obama: The Politics of Healthcare
by A new report is out about insurance and health care, and it's not good. If you think the cost of health care is high now, just wait...It's going to get even higher. Who would have thought that you could have insurance, and still not be able to afford healthcare? How is that possible? Only in America.
A few weeks ago I posted about the rising cost of prescription drugs, now it's copays and premiums that will be increasing. Even people who have insurance and prescription drug plans, still can't afford their medications. I thought insurance was suppose to "insure" we have quality and affordable health care? Not so much.
The United States spends more of its income on health care than any nation on earth, nearly $6,000 per person per year, more than 15 percent of our total income. In contrast, the countries of the European Monetary Union spend about $2,500 per person per year, less than 10 percent of their income.
The United States is very rich and we spend the most in the world on health care. We have a right to expect more for our money than a life expectancy outcome that places us thirtieth in the world, behind Singapore, Chile, and Costa Rica as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and every Western European nation.
Our health care system certainly delivers innovations in pharmaceutical and other technologies. It leads the world in Nobel Prizes for medicine and physiology. But it does not deliver medical care equitably to all Americans. Those who can pay have access to the best health care in the world. Those with good insurance plans—a decreasing fraction of the population—get good, life-extending health care. The rest must make do. And the result is that enough people fall through the cracks to place us at the bottom of the rich country life expectancy tables.
Here is some of what other women bloggers are saying about the rising cost of health care.
From Green LA Girl...
Our health care system’s so fucked up that people are getting married — and considering divorce! — simply due to health insurance issues. In the NY Times: “For today’s couples, “in sickness and in health” may seem less a lover’s troth than an actuarial contract. They marry for better or worse, for richer or poorer, for co-pays and deductibles.”
From MOMocrats...
- Under McCain’s Plan, Health Insurance Benefits Would be Taxed For The First Time, Resulting In A $3.6 Trillion Tax Increase On Working Families. McCain’s health care plan would eliminate the payroll deduction on health care benefits, which would have the effect of raising taxes on working families by $3.6 trillion. [New York Times, 5/1/08]
- The Health Care Tax Credit McCain Offers Would Cover Less Than Half The Cost Of An Average Health Care Plan. The McCain health plan would give families a $5,000 tax credit to purchase health insurance. However, in 2007, the average family health insurance plan cost $12,000 – more than double the value of McCain’s health care tax credit. [“Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/11/07; “‘Call To Action’ On Health Care Reform,” John McCain 2008 press release, 4/29/08; Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]
From Just Random's presidential wish list...
Universal Health Care (or at least affordable health care) – Why is the United States the only modernized country with out some form of universal health care? I know an argument could be made for the U.S. having the best health care, but why can’t we have both, come on some one smarter than me make it happen. Every child in this country should have access to health care.
From Christian Liberal's Weblog...
Whatever the case, it’s surprising that so many self-professed Christians, and especially the evangelical type, are so eager to maul, mangle and manipulate those words, those lessons, so that it comes out as “every man for himself”, which of course is the exact opposite of the meaning and spirit of those teachings.
They’ll use phrases like “self-determination” or “market forces”, but it’s really just code words for “you’re on your own” and “don’t expect any help from me.” Likewise, they will use negative words to describe the concept. It’s been found that a majority of Americans favors universal healthcare, but if you change the language to “socialized medicine” the approval rating drops below 50%. And the greed-oriented apologists are quite expert at word-smithing.
The point is, any good-hearted Christian would not begrudge the care given to a needy neighbor.
Are you having trouble affording health care? Are you hoping if Obama is elected, things might get a little better? Are you worried, that if McCain is elected, things will get worse?
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election
Posted In
XML Feed Recent Comments
I simplify my life by on post Read BlogHer reviews for Oroweat® Dutch Country® and enter to win $500!
600 gallons per one
tank of on post The All New Chevy Equinox is giving you a chance to win a $1,000 GAS CARD!
tank of on post The All New Chevy Equinox is giving you a chance to win a $1,000 GAS CARD!
I like
the fact that
it on post The All New Chevy Equinox is giving you a chance to win a $1,000 GAS CARD!
the fact that
it on post The All New Chevy Equinox is giving you a chance to win a $1,000 GAS CARD!
Leighbra your
Thanksgiving
sounds
incredible. on post Say No to Fake Plastic Wishbones & Other Thanksgiving Waste
Thanksgiving
sounds
incredible. on post Say No to Fake Plastic Wishbones & Other Thanksgiving Waste
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
Individual cost
I am lucky enough to have insurance. I pay thousands of dollars a year for it, but I have it. I also pay thousands of dollars a year for a long term insurance policy in case I need future nursing care. Plus I pay very high taxes, which in part cover the health care of all those people working very hard in jobs that have no health benefits. I don't know how it would work out if all those dollars went instead into a form of universal health care, but I'd like to find out.
I've lately become interested in idea of health care as a social business, as described in Creating a World without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism by Muhammad Yunus. Getting the insurance companies to let go of health care will be like getting the car companies to let go of fossil fuel. But it might be possible to start health care services run as social businesses that could supplant the way it currently is run.
Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor
Web Teacher
First 50 Words
Virginia, Good start to the
Virginia,
Good start to the convo, we get off topic a bit and then it comes back to health care in the following comments to those who are reading for the first time. This is a great discussion to have. I would love to hear more from both sides.
No, I don't have insurance
I don't have health insurance, and outside of being able to get insurance within a group plan, where pre-existing conditions and family factors are not issues, individual health insurance is not an option for me.
Both parents had cancer, including my mother most recently. Colon cancer. When we met her surgeon outside of the sugery to hear the diagnosis, the second thing he said to both my brother and me was that it was critical we both have a colonoscopy.
That was two years ago, and no, I've not had a colonoscopy. I could save up the 1500.00 for the procedure, but what happens if they were to find tumors? I could never afford the care my mother has had. I'm not sure I would want to go through the process of trying to get treatment without health insurance -- many physicians won't even see you if you aren't covered.I would have to throw myself on the mercy of whatever state help is in place, or the kindness of my neighbors.
And if my neighbors were the McCains or the Palins, I guess I would be out of luck, eh?
So, I live my life under the assumption I'll probably be dead by the time I'm 60, because our country believes that health care is a luxury that we have to "earn". That our health care system and access to health care are just peachy keen, and any kind of change to both would, oh my gosh, mean Sarah Palin and John McCain might have to wait a couple of extra days when they want to see the doctor. How rude for them.
Obama is the only chance we have to see this change. The only chance. McCain's proposal will make matters worse, rather than better. Ultimately in the end, he, and his running mate, Palin, believe people like me deserve what we get.
Now, more and more, we hear about the supposedly insured not getting access to the care they need, because insurance companies automatically deny coverage in so many cases. I guess those people get what they deserve, too.
The saddest thing of all, is that we are spending more on healthcare specifically because of the system we have in place. Twenty percent of all health care money is used just to have systems that can deal with all of the individual health care companies different coverage policies.
I have to wonder at how great a country really is, when it happily lets 18,000 Americans die every year, just because we don't have health care coverage. Oh, 18,000 and growing.
It's actually embarrassing to admit I don't have health insurance. It's become a status thing, and tantamont to an admission of failure. You're a failure because you don't have health insurance. How bizarre is that?
My ongoing story on not having health coverage: http://shelleypowers.com/47-million-and-one/47-million-and-one
What some of us believe
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
No, what some of us believe is that your neighbors and acquaintances and people you don't know shouldn't have to pay for your health care. When you talk about throwing yourself on the mercy of your neighbors...exactly how is that different from "free" healthcare, except that if the government takes it from my paycheck, you don't have to look me in the eye and ask for the money?
You may argue that a compassionate society makes provisions for those who are unable to provide for themselves, but our constitution does not assign universal healthcare to the federal government. In fact, coercing others to pay for entitlement programs such as universal healthcare is contradictory to the Constitution.
I suggest you suck it up for a colonoscopy. Give up your wi-fi and your cell phone and your cable for a few months and negotiate a reduced fee with a gastroenterologist. If he finds polyps during the scope, he'll remove them. Then you're free and clear for the next three years, plenty of time to save up for the next one.
Then I won't pay for your road
Then I won't pay for your roads, since I don't drive on them. Let's figure out which roads I use,and I'll pay just enough tax for them.
I won't pay for your kids education, since I don't have kids. Nope, not a penny.
I won't pay for the firemen who come rescue you if your house is on fire. Did you know the original "fire insurance" was just that? Paying for a private company to put out the fire on your home?
I won't pay for your police. No, I think we need to hire groups of security to patrol our own areas, maybe put up gates, and get killer dogs. Yeah, that will work.
I won't pay for the costs of the Iraq "war". After all, I didn't support it, it doesn't do a thing for me.
If your town is hit by a natural disaster, I won't pay for FEMA to come help you.
I won't continue to pay for money for medical research, so if you catch that rare disease, tough
I don't have cable, and I won't pay for that part of the infrastructure cable is dependent on so you can have your cable, too.
i don't have a cellphone, and I won't pay for that part of the infrastructure the phone systems are dependent on so you can have your cellphone, too.
I do have internet for my job, so I guess I'll continue to pay into the infrastructure for it. But not a dime beyond what's necessary for me and mine to get what we want. I don't care about you and yours. After all, that's the Ameican way.
Eventually, we can strip every bit of "socialized" services out of our government, and you can live in your cave, and I'll live in mine. And then, perhaps, you'll have the life you seem to want.
PS I certainly won't continue to pay for your faith, which you seem to profess so gleefully. If you attend a church and it has tax exempt status, I think that should end now and it should start paying its fair due. After all, some of the churches seem to have a lot of money.
Let's dismantle your argument piece by piece
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
Overarching theme: there are certain things the U.S. Constitution requires/allows the federal government to do. Common defense and maintenance of infrastructure, yes. Healthcare? No. But let's go into more detail:
1. The roads you don't drive on (so, you sit in your house all day?) DO bring you the goods and services you need, want and desire. You may not drive a car, but you buy food that is transported by trucks that ARE driven on the roads. Etc.
2. I don't believe the government should be in the education business, so I'm fine if you don't want to educate my kids. But...I suspect you were educated on the government dime. Going to pay that back?
3. You don't have to pay for the fire/police in my town. My property taxes do that. And yes, I have sold insurance, so I understand the premise behind it. BTW, we are charged extra if the fire/emergency guys pay us a visit.
4. The common defense is part of the federal mandate; if you don't like a certain war which is deemed part of that defense, you get to vote for different politicians, but you don't get to refuse to fund that war. Sorry. Civics 101.
5. I don't believe FEMA should be taking care of me in the event of a natural disaster. So, I'm okay with that.
6. You aren't paying much in the way of medical research with your taxes, and I'm fine with not funding medical R&D with taxes. I don't want the government deciding which disease states merit funding and which don't--do you? Because see, common diseases will get the R&D dollar--if you have MS or other relatively rare problems, you will be SOL.
What I want is a government that follows the mandate of the Constitution. Don't see medical care, food stamps, subsidized housing, FEMA, education in there. Do see infrastructure and common defense. As for churches being tax-exempt--you are going to run afoul of the whole "wall" idea there. If there is such a great "wall" between church and state--no taxes. If not (which I would argue) then sure, let's tax churches. But you don't get to cry foul every time faith enters the public square.
Your logic is specious and your understanding of the Constitution lacking.
My understanding of the
My understanding of the Constitution is just fine, but I'm not a member
of the Federalist Society, nor am I an Originalist, either. In fact, it is the risk inherent with the Originalist control of the Supreme Court that I consider the most acutely dangerous aspect of the upcoming election.
I loath Originalists for tying us to the past, keeping us petty, our hopes dimmed, and our aspirations small. For raising selfishness to a high standard, and for the smirk of smug self righteousness inherent with the "I got mine, screw you" premise on which the group operates.
Interstate road maintenance by the federal government is a relatively new phenomena, and such coverage was deemed appropriate because of the "national defense". However, even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that such efforts either bypassed what was allowed by the Constitution (or stretched it beyond what the Originalist would support).
The same could be said for FEMA, too. And though you disdain help from the government in case of major disaster, I have a feeling you've not lived through major flood, hurricane, or earthquake--not to the point where your life is in danger, and everything you own is gone. How could you and still have such a callous, and dangerous, lack of empathy?
Even then, one could stretch FEMA to the constitution, because a people will not be willing to give money to protect the overall federal government, when their own homes may be at risk at any given time.
As to your other "defense" argument, Iraq was not battening at our borders, nor were they a threat to us. There's nothing in the constitution about invading countries for no good reason, and it certainly has done little for our defense.
You mentioned property taxes, did your township agree, as a society, to use the taxes you pay for the common good? In order to pay for police, fire, and other emergency services, as well as water, sewer and including the 911 system? Isn't working for the common good something you vehemently reject? Or is it that you only work for the common good when you, directly, get something out of it?
As for your church and its tax exempt status, what does taxation have to do with freedom of religion? Churches make money from people buying services from them. Tax em.
Regarding my education, I believe I covered my share a long time ago. That's it, no more for you and yours. Except that I don't agree with this premise--I believe that the most important, and most basic, right in our country, is the right not to be ignorant.
But then, you disdain the thought that the people of this country should be educated, completely disregarding your own argument for defense being covered by the Constitution. Tell me, how safe is a country full of ignorant, uneducated people?
Oh, sorry, I think I asked that question of the wrong person.
To return this topic to health care, what is better for the "general welfare" of the people than for us to not be afraid of being sick, because we can't afford to get the treatments we need? Or is the only aspect of the Constitution you see the one having to do with defense?
Regardless, if we as a society insist on using the Constitution as a justification for denying the basic human rights to the people of this country, then frankly we deserve the future you see for us. And it's a dark, and sad future, too.
Mangling ... the Bible
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
When the Bible urges us to care for the least among us, it isn't prescribing public policy. There is no contradiction between being a conservative Christian and believing that the vast majority of people should take care of themselves. Why? Because Christians know that in a fallen world, one of the most ubiquitous sins is sloth. Given the opportunity, many will allow others to provide for them. If nothing else, 50 years of the "Great Society" have taught us that the more you give to people, the less they will do on their own.
As for prescription drugs, there are very, very few instances where you absolutey have to have the brand-name drug. If you don't want to pay a higher co-pay (yet you obviousy have a computer, probably a cell phone and cable TV), then take the generic. It may be less convenient; it may have more side effects. So what? BTW, prescription drug prices make up only about 15% of total health care spending in the U.S. And the money that they save from reduced hospitalization is not included in that assessment.
Health care in America is so expensive in part because no one ever pays out of pocket. Over-utilization is grotesque. End-of-life care sucks up a tremendous amount of money--and we allow it to because no one has to write a check to keep grandma alive on a vent in the ICU for months, to give just one example. When I am sitting in a doctor's office and she receives a phone call from a Medicaid patient who is taking a cab from 20 miles away (paid for by my tax dollars) for her second visit in a week (because she feels like seeing the doctor), then I really don't see the utility or the efficiency in having my tax dollars pay for healthcare for even more people.
Health insurance should be just that--payment for catastrophic expenses that happen rarely to the individual and are subsidized by the group. Health insurance shouldn't pay for your maintenance and preventive care. If you need major surgery, then the group subsidizes it. If you have high cholesterol and hypertension--suck it up and eat baked beans a few times a month. Buy your own meds. Zocor for high cholesterol is generic and cheap. So are drugs for hypertension. Lose weight; quit smoking; exercise. Then the bulk of your healthcare dollar won't have to go to pay for lifestyle-related disease like CV disease and osteoarthritis from carrying an extra 50 pounds around.
We don't expect our neighbors and co-workers to pay our mortgage, buy our gas, pay for our groceries or provide our cars...why do you think your neighbors and co-workers should pay for your medication or medical care?
Well, if you are familiar
Well, if you are familiar with the teachings of Christ and the Gospels, you would know the following:
Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]
Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
-----------------------------
Christ was a radical who was working against corrupt government, selfishness and the hypocritical Pharisees. Pharisees who claimed to be the most righteous but who were misinterpreting the Old Testament in order to fulfill their self-interest.
No, Christ was not a community organizer
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
Sorry, but Christ was the Son of God who died to redeem us. And his sermons to his followers were not policy statements for the Romans who were governing them. To the extent that you take Christ as a moral example, He is a personal example. He did not intend for you to take his words (out of context) and use them to bludgeon SOMEONE ELSE to take care of you.
I suspect that you are a rabid "separation of church and state" type. Heaven forbid that we should mention God in the public square, but you have no qualms about using religion to coerce another into paying for your needs. Can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is a policy statement (in which case, give up the abortion mantra) and governs every element of our communal life (oh, sorry, that would be what Islam prescribes) or it isn't and can't be used selectively to force others' to do your bidding. Since it is the latter, don't try to use it to tell me I have to take care of you. Ask your immediate family to take care of you. Then ask your close community--your church, your community organizations. Quit telling complete strangers that Jesus commanded them to care for 200 million other people.
And get the story straight. Jesus wasn't a good guy teaching us how to live. He is the Son of God ALLOWING us truly to live.
All I can say
right now, is how glad I am that I'm an atheist.
Because most atheists seem to care what happens to their neighbors.
PS Thank you for showing us the McCain way. I think you do a great job of promoting what kind of life we can expect if he and Palin were elected. Yup, you do him proud.
Ditto to Shellyp
Atheist/Humanist here too. I'm glad that at least one Christian conservative is quite honest about how utterly lacking in humanitarian values Christians can be. I'm in the highest income bracket, work my ass off and I have good health insurance but I am ashamed to be a member of society that lets the teeth of the poor rot rather than provide basic dentistry, that spends $1,000,000 to save an insured micropremie but a mother of a ten year old with an ear infection and no insurance has to decide whether to take her kid to the doctor or risk not being able to pay the electric bill that month. These stories are all too common and we should all be hanging our heads in collective shame. Universal Health Care. NOW.
http://sandradginzburg.typepad.com/inner_city_mama/
Atheist Libertarian Here
And I think you're way out of line, ShellyP. Don't draw a sweeping generalization and include me in your rants.
You said: I loath Originalists for tying us to the past, keeping us petty, our hopes dimmed, and our aspirations small.
I hardly think our Founding Fathers were petty, hopeless or unmotivated. On the contrary, if we returned to their values and had faith in the people of this country I think we would find a new hope and higher aspirations. Keeping people poor because we tell them they can't possibly do anything for themselves w/o govt help is criminal. And that's what govt handouts do.
In all of your intimations that Queen1 is somehow ignorant because she disagrees with you, I could not helping thinking that one should be very careful when leveling accusations that can be easily turned around.
Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home
Those Damn Founding
Those Damn Founding Fathers...what did they know, anyhow?
In general, the great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of law. -- Andrew Jackson, 1821
It is a reproach to religion and government to suffer so much poverty and so much excess. -- William Penn, 1693
To provide employment for the poor, and
support for the indigent, is among the primary, and, at the
same time, not least difficult cares of the public authority. - James Madison, 1820
I have no doubt that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate wherever the Government assumes a freeer aspect, and the laws favor a subdivision of property. -- James Madison, 1786
"It is only in civilized nations where extremes are to be found in the
human species -- it is here where wealthy and dignified morals roll along the
streets in all the parade and trappings of royalty, while the lower class are
not half so well fed as the horses of the former. It is this cruel inequality
which has given rise to the epithets of nobility, vulgar, mob, canaille, etc.
and the degrading but common observation -- Man differs more from man, than man
from beast -- The difference is purely artificial. Thus do men create an
artificial inequality among themselves and then cry out it is all natural." - Robert Coram, 1791
Guard against the postures of pretended Patriotism. - George Washington, 1796
I have not found men's honesty to increase with their riches. - Thomas Jefferson, 1800
Melanie, each of thinks
Melanie, each of thinks those who don't agree with us are ignorant. That's why we debate, rather than spend our time doing other, most likely more worthwhile tasks.
"Founding Fathers" and Originalists don't really go together, do they?
As for our founding fathers...
In the interest of political expediency they denied women the vote
Many were slave holders, and supported slavery
Many believed that only property holders should have the right to vote or hold office
Framing Constitutional decisions based on the views held by the Founding Fathers means you want to give up your right to vote, Melanie, because our right to vote only came about later, via Amendment.
As for my accusations at Queen, she has implied that those of us without health insurance are lazy and undeserving, that the only problem with the health care system is it provides too much, and that her grasp of Constitutional law is vastly superior to my own. If I said what I really wanted to say to Queen, I would be banned for life from Blogher.
Again, I must apologize for going off topic. However, the issue of universal health care really is focused on how one views the Constitution, and what type of society our country will be going into the future. It is the tip of the iceberg of a much broader topic, and debate.
And get the story
And get the story straight. Jesus wasn't a good guy teaching us how to live. He is the Son of God ALLOWING us truly to live.
Um, what?
Are you even a Christian? The whole PURPOSE of Christ's teachings during his time on earth were to teach us how to live!
Have you ever been to seminary? Because most of my friends have, including two in-laws who are pastors. I've been to classes (even though I'm not a seminarian) and study the teachings of the Gospels all of the time. IN AN EVANGELICAL CHURCH no less.
Even the CATHOLICS agree with me. As is represented in the documents of the Second Vatican Council:
1. Today's disciples are servants of humanity.
2. Today's disciples seek vital union with the risen Christ.
3. Today's disciples show special concern for the poor.
4. Today's disciples struggle to build a more peaceful and united world.
5. Today's disciples take a broad and optimistic view of God's saving
love.
Soooo...which church do you belong to again? I am intensely curious and I think that it is completely relevant to the argument that you are trying to make here.
Just because you know a pastor doesn't make
you an expert
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
1. The Eastern Orthodox church.
2. I got my M.Div. from the General Theological Seminary in NYC.
3. I spent 10 years as an ordained minister.
Just because many Christians have swallowed the "social Gospel" hook, line and sinker doesn't make their theology sound. Christ's purpose was NOT to tell us how to live. Christ's purpose was to die for our sins and redeem us from death. If you don't believe that, then YOU are not a Christian. Go be a Buddhist, or whatever, but don't call yourself a Christian.
Our theosis (that is, becoming like God) occurs on a daily basis, and it involves living a life in keeping with Christ's teachings. But Jesus was not a politician, and he was not suggesting public policy to the ROMAN government. In fact, when asked, he made a clear distinction between GOVERNMENT (i.e., Caesar) and God. At no time did he demand that the government force the individual to care for others. You don't have a Biblical mandate to coerce me to take care of you. If you think you do, I suggest you convert to Islam. There, theology IS politics. For the Christian community, what the government does is irrelevant. Within the Christian community, we take care of each other out of love for the other, not because the law says we have to do so.
If you are going to use the Bible as a political document guiding public policy and the rule of law, then be ready to give up "abortion" rights, "gay marriage," sodomy, adultery and fornication while you reach into my wallet to subsidize your standard of living. Be ready to allow public prayer and require that everyone be a Christian--because Jesus specifically noted that he was not concerned with the gentiles, only the Jews. But you don't want that, do you? You want to select only certain passages of Scripture in order to question my faith and support your arguments.
Read the rest of the New Testament, and a bit of the Old. Scripture is pretty clear about pulling your own weight and guarding against sloth. And the admonishment against greed would suggest that our poor give up an awful lot of what they seem to feel is their right. Furthermore, Scripture would require that those benefitting from the largesse of their community become PART of that community--not just suck at its teat. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, not just keep on doing what she was doing.
Liberation theology and the social Gospel lost what little credence they had long ago. I suggest you read some of the early Church fathers and attend a Church that is still grounded in the faith as it was transmitted 2000 years ago.
And About the Romans (Catholics, that is)
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
The Roman Church has a lot to say about politics. While they are admonishing concern for the poor (BTW, have you BEEN to the Vatican? SEEN the treasure contained there? They ain't giving up everything they own for the poor), they are also demanding an end to abortion, abjuring against homosexual behavior and other common immoralities, requiring their ordained ministers to be celibate (and male) and strongly suggesting that only RCs belong to the "true" Church and participate fully in the life of grace offered within the Church. The pope also recognizes the grave threat posed by Islam and that salvation is given only to Christians.
In for a penny, in for a pound. No cafeteria Christianity, sorry.
Yes, I would agree that
1. Old Testament law presents examples of divine legislation that provide for redistributive justice for the poor. This is especially evident in the Jubilee laws (Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15:7-11). By His own command, God’s people are to make sure that cycles of poverty are broken.
2. In both the Old and New Testaments, God’s people are instructed to become personally involved in extending compassion. Compassion goes beyond the creation of just laws, or feelings of concern. We are to demonstrate God’s heart and action by becoming personally (1 John 3:17-18; Luke 18:22).
3. We are to approach the poor not from a position of superiority, but to extend friendship in Christ-like manner (2 Corinthians 8:9).
4. Fulfilling God’s instruction to be with the poor is a key path to revitalization of our own spiritual lives, as individuals and as churches. Many references throughout the Bible support this premise (2 Chronicles 15:7; Psalm 62:12; Proverbs 11:18; 13:21; 19:17; Jeremiah 17:10 and 32:19; 1 Corinthians 3:9-14; Matthew 6:1-4 and 16:27; Ephesians 6:7-8; Colossians 3:23-24; Hebrews 10:36; and 1 Timothy 6:18-19 all reflect such a message).
5. God’s intentions have never been for some of God’s people to accumulate wealth while others are in abject poverty. Sufficient food, safe neighborhoods and schools, reasonable housing, health care, decent clothes: these are God's intentions for all his people. When we pursue God’s mission of working with the poor, we are accomplishing God’s will for others and tending to our own spiritual health (Jeremiah 29:11; Isaiah 32:18 and 58:12).
We probably need to carry this on to a
different thread
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
The moderator has noted that we are straying way off topic. In an effort to be respectful, I suggest we 1) carry this on via e-mail or 2) start a different blog.
BTW, to the extent that anyone of us can divine God's intentions for His people, I suspect that His intention is that all people come to Him and receive salvation. Anything after that is subject to debate.
"Just for ME and MINE"
"Just for ME and MINE" doesn't belong in Christianity either.
Sorry.
Although a great debate-
Although a great debate- Health Care is the issue here not religion bashing!
~Susan
http://lilmomthatcould.com/
Sorry, Susan. This was a
Sorry, Susan. This was a very long explanation that, as a Christian, while I feel it is imperative for me to support health care for all.
See my point #5 of there.
Eastern Orthodox, okay. It
Eastern Orthodox, okay. It makes total sense that we are not in agreement on the interpretation and application of the teachings of Christ.
So, let me tell you a little bit about how my Christian viewpoint is different from yours. (I'll try to make it simple for you.) I will not be converting you to my view and you will not be converting me. But you cannot claim to speak for all Christians in your worldview, especially Evangelicals.
The New Testament is the new covenant between God and His disciples as explained through the teachings of Christ. (Hebrews 8-9: It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors at
the time when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land
of Egypt. Because they did not remain loyal to my covenant, I ignored
them, declares the Lord.)
I believe that Christ died for our all people (1 Peter 3:18).
I believe that:
Within the Synoptic Gospels especially, Jesus sets an example for His disciples to follow for living in the world. The Gospels contain accounts of Jesus repeatedly advocating for the poor and outcast over the wealthy, powerful, and religious. As a follower of Jesus, I feel obligated to incorporate his teachings into my daily life and this leads me to be an advocate for the poor, for social justice and for the protection of the vulnerable in our society.
I am a believer in the Consistent Life Ethic, which is held by many Evangelicals, many Catholics, Hindus and Buddhists, this is true. I don't think that denigrating Buddhism or Hinduism is productive or respectful.
*****
No, Jesus was not a politician. He was an activist for the rights of the poor and disenfranchised who criticized government.
****
I do not believe that the Bible is a document that should govern public policy.
I DO believe the Bible, especially the New Testament for Christians, is a document that should guide our decisions on who to vote for in government, the policies we should support, and our worldview.
The mods have asked us to stop
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
If you want, you can email me at cathorus@yahoo.com Or we can start another thread. If we accept that Jesus was an "activist" then we must also accept that he called for those who received the charity of others to become responsible, active members of the believing community. If you call for forced charity (which is an oxymoron), then you must call for the recipients of that charity to abandon their sin and become responsible participants in the community. The early Church did not extend its charity to non-members, and members of the community who repeatedly erred and took advantage of the community's grace were sanctioned. To the extent that we are called to reach out to non-believers, it is to evangelize them--bring them to Christ. That is where the Church's resources should go--and beyond that, to care for those within the community unable to care for themselves. The Gospel is not a mandate for global socialism, sorry.
Queen1-- You cannot call for
Queen1--
You cannot call for a stop to this conversation right before posting an incendiary viewpoint and expect me to respect that.
If you want to continue the discussion in a thread that you create, I'm all for it. As I am for conducting this discussion in the open where others can access it.
I agree the thread is off topic.
When you create a new thread on BlogHer, and I am finished with the work I am doing today, I'll be happy to re-enter this discussion with you.
I wasn't trying to sucker-punch you
Queen1
www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com
I was just aware that the moderator had intervened and didn't want to show her disrespect by continuing the religious debate at the expense of the original topic. We had ranged pretty far afield and taken the conversation in an entirely different direction. Which was fine with me--I'm really enjoying it, but I didn't want to be rude.
I posted a long piece on my thoughts about what you wrote over at my blog. You can access it there and post comments or I may try to get it copied over here on a different thread.
But for now, I have to find something besides frozen pizza to feed the masses tonight. There's a whole riff right there about trying to feed children something that doesn't come from a box and require a microwave.
I don't think what I wrote was incendiary. I do think there is much to discuss about your view of the Gospel and mine--just not right here.
Religion aside, when will
Religion aside, when will America decide to fight for the social justice of its own people?
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080801/aet10-q_a.html
Here is a link to the SEC filing for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 for AETNA, a health insurance company. It shows operating earnings of over $100 million dollars for the six months ended June 30/08. Can a reasonable person really think there is no room for regulation? Would a wealthy,insured person not also benefit from some regulation?
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080808/pfe10-q.html
And here is pfizer, a pharmaceutical: Net income of $5500 million for the six months ended June 30? Am I even reading these numbers correctly? I have checked and double checked and I think I am.
Like countless others I watched my husband buy health insurance when he didn't have it, got a $15,000 knee surgery and still had to pay $3000 even though he was "covered". I can't even imagine what one does when they get diagnosed with cancer. Shelley P good for you for being vocal on this.
Here's the thing. I feel like America is actually making people resist the opportunity to make something of themselves through small business. If I had a child in America today I would have to bite my tongue so hard not to push them into a career that would land them a government job where they would be paid with taxpayers money, "on the dole" as some say. The one person I know in America who is taking year and a half maternity leave is a public school teacher. No, she is not being paid right now but she has her job secured to come back to. Why does she deserve that right and no one who works for someone in the private sector does? When she had a major car accident a few years ago, she didn't see one bill (thank the Lord, she shouldn't) but she is covered by a program that her government employer has acquiesced to. Ultimately I think America ought to have some minimal paid leaves, but even I don't dare mention it, YET. Baby steps, I suppose.
I suspect that federal government employees have good health care and every American deserves access to it. I also suspect that Federal employees have a access to unpaid parental leave with job security. Check out this link http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112471.php where they discuss paid parental leave for fed employees (not sure of the outcome, but it's obviously on the table).
At this link http://www.opm.gov/oca/leave/HTML/childbirthfs.asp it states the following in regards to unpaid leave for fedeal employees:
"Subject to supervisory approval, both parents may use leave without pay for pregnancy and childbirth or to be absent from work to bond with or care for a healthy newborn. Supervisors should refer to agency internal policy and negotiated bargaining union agreements prior to approval." What so the cost is not too much to give fed employees unpaid secure leave, just those in the private sector?
Every American should start telling their kids to just work for the government. It's the only place where a chance at health, and a life with some balance and a chance to pause and recoop and celebrate a new family member via a decent mat leave can be found in the US. America's system doesn't promote picking yourself up by your bootstraps. To say it is someone's own fault for being ill equipped to deal with the cards the health gods have dealt them is cruel.
All the people who think taxes are the end of the world are just ridiculous. The concept of a progressive system where those who have a greater ability to pay, pay more, is used the world over. As a Cdn I pay lots of tax and my standard of living is just fine thanks. The doctors kids that I went to school with and lawyers kids all got our little diva upbringings where despite heavy taxation mom and dad still had a good standard of living that rewarded their hard work. The difference was that the kids who parents weren't doctors and lawyers and government workers got the dignity of health care, because although they may not be business owners or university educated they still get out of bed and go off to work everyday which is an honourable thing. I would never suggest that America go as left as Canada. But refusing to budge on regulation of the health care system, and bringing up the tired example of cost/benefit when it obvious doesn't apply to everyone is hypocrisy - and it plainly doesn't work.
And the pro LIfe movement argues that a child should not suffer due to the parents error in use of birth control. I agree! Furthermore, after the baby is born, I don't think the child should live a life of no health care due to the parents inability to pay.
America has major domestic problems. There are threads on this site about maternity leave, schools not having paper and pens to provide, healthcare. My experience in America showed me crumbling infrastructure. These problems will never be addressed by people picking up by their bootstraps, they need some money administered, and they need the money administered under a serious plan that has been evaluated and put through a serious critique, by dare I say, someone schooled in law or finance or economics, and not (head explodes) a pit bull hockey mom.
Here is the depiction that America tries to give of itself to the world. It is a scene from the Sandlot, two and a half minutes long (just watch even the last 30 seconds of it). I feel like my husband got this experience as a kid, based on stories he has told me. I desperately want my own kids to have this experience, this love for their country and sense of security and idyllic home that is conveyed in this movie and many others and in the books of Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary. I know all those things are fiction, but they are based upon the writers' experiences. These fictional tales are what every politician keeps promising. As a kid, I assumed America was the greatest place in the world. I thought it was the most patriotic, unified - help out your brother place a person could live. I would have been so pumped to be told at age 10 that I would live my adult life in America. Now, facing such a move in the next 12 months I am sad, and so afraid that when people say the sun has set on America's greatest years that they are right.
Here's the sandlot scene, I know this is cheesy but this is what every kid deserves - not a class system where you are born wealthy or poor with no chance of changin it. Listen to the song in the background, when do Americans get to feel that way again?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_8RDNMpASo
Thank you for your eloquent
Thank you for your eloquent and detailed comment, L16.
I must apologize to the collective whole in this comment thread for allowing myself to get sidetracked into--instituting really-- a more general discussion of Originalism, rather than staying specifically on health care.
To me, it's difficult to separate the two topics, because the Originalists are vehemently against health care.
Still, my bad.
---edited and deleted some
---edited and deleted some snark I added.--