Consistently pro-life

[rlvaughn]

What I'm saying about my brother is he got a special blessing from God from a godly surgeon. How many needy people would receive a gift like that? If they all did the surgeon would have to stop practicing medicine.

Thanks for clarifying. It is a wonderful blessing that your brother obtained the care he needed, in the way it happened. I for one would not expect doctors to do all their work for free, but it is nice when they are able to do so once in awhile. But you had made the point that he was one of the people who would had died had it not been for Obamacare, when in fact his case doesn't seem to be related to Obamacare at all.

My aunt had severe Alzheimer's the last 4 or 5 years of her life and a moderate version before that. Her care cost about $150K/year (severe part only). That comes to well over a million dollars. I couldn't have afforded that and brother has very little having pastored a poor church in a rather rough part of town. The only option would have been to release her.

We have encounters with Alzheimers in our family, the results of one case I won't go into which has continued to have ongoing residual effects on many of us. Also an uncle had a wife who had Alzheimers that went on for probably 20 years -- starting with minor things you wouldn't think much of and progressing on to severe dementia. He cared for her at home all this time until he died. In the case of your aunt, though, perhaps I don't understand, since it seems based on what you have now said that you were projecting Obamacare on to the case where it doesn't actually relate and is rather about what you think the Republicans might do to Medicare. Is that right? This could be a bad situation, but from the concern you express I wonder whether you would actually let your aunt live on the street.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't have health insurance but surprised to hear that you don't consider that to be important. Do you have a full-time job? Do you have to decide between buying food and purchasing insurance? I just retired after working as an engineer for 40 years. My family emphasized the work ethic.

Interesting that you would imply that I don't have a work ethic because I feel I can't afford to purchase health insurance. We do eat and we don't buy health insurance. It is a judgment call based on our own knowledge of our lifestyle, our income, and our priorities. As far as work ethic, I won't spend a lot of time justifying to you what is our business, but I am "tri"-vocational -- work a secular job, pastor a small church and am one of the primary caregivers for an elderly parent.

ObamaCare does not apply for anyone eligible for Social Security. The bulk of MEDICAID funding is for elderly senior citizens care in nursing homes. Oh, but the GOP "health plan" wants to significantly cut Medicaid and put those deserving people out. MAT 25:31-46 specifically addresses opposing efforts to help other people. This is the best description of the Final Judgment in the Bible. I take it seriously. Do you?

Matthew 25:31-46 indeed contains a great biblical lesson on helping people. To use this to charge those who are helping other people but don't want to take from someone else to help others, or that they don't take it seriously, is a charge beyond the teaching of the text. One of the difficulties of profitable discussion in this arena is that when someone has a different plan, different idea, they are often charged with not caring about the elderly, sick and infirm. [Note: my reference to those helping others is a reference to individual Christians and not specifically to politicians. While I believe there are politicians who care about others (neither party has a copyright on that), I am afraid that far too many politicians, Democrat and Republican, tend to favor whichever plan will get them re-elected. It is hard to trust that mentality.]

When we start justifying Obamacare or Trumpcare or whatever other versions we favor, there will always be stories that favor one way over the other. Everyone has a story. One of our stories is that before Obamacare my elderly mother had access to some in home nurse visits that were paid for by Medicare, but after Obamacare she was cut off. We didn't curse Obama, we just stepped up and did what we had to do. Any huge conglomeration of Federal Care is going to have pros & cons and benefits & unintended consequences.

Back to the original reason we were discussing this, if you don't see a difference between abortion and healthcare I have no further ability to explain it. Lack of healthcare insurance may end in death, disability or discomfort, but also may end in one getting better and living a long and prosperous life. I've found that there are many sicknesses from which one will recover in 6 days by staying home and taking care of yourself -- but from which one will recover in half a dozen days by going to the doctor and getting a prescription. On the other hand, successful abortions result in the death of 100% of the children aborted.

 

[FollowTheWay]

How come nobody reported on those poor souls who died because the provider(s) (like Aetna) couldn't profit and offer a viable package and therefore backed out of ObamaCare leaving folks to die while wondering around the streets?

HankD

The insurance companies are the real villains. They're the ones who have the death panels. Obviously, it's not an "evangelical Christian" objective to do anything about this. Instead, as we've seen here, they want to cut off medical care for the needy to provide massive tax cuts for the rich.

 

[HankD]

The insurance companies are the real villains. They're the ones who have the death panels. Obviously, it's not an "evangelical Christian" objective to do anything about this. Instead, as we've seen here, they want to cut off medical care for the needy to provide massive tax cuts for the rich.

I don't think you can prove that in pariticular.
IMO there are no real "villains" apart from human nature permeating all society and all our institutions.

Also, I am a believer in social medicine for ALL, proportionate to their ability to pay an equitable share (0 to 100%).

HankD

 

[FollowTheWay]

Thanks for clarifying. It is a wonderful blessing that your brother obtained the care he needed, in the way it happened. I for one would not expect doctors to do all their work for free, but it is nice when they are able to do so once in awhile. But you had made the point that he was one of the people who would had died had it not been for Obamacare, when in fact his case doesn't seem to be related to Obamacare at all. We have encounters with Alzheimers in our family, the results of one case I won't go into which has continued to have ongoing residual effects on many of us. Also an uncle had a wife who had Alzheimers that went on for probably 20 years -- starting with minor things you wouldn't think much of and progressing on to severe dementia. He cared for her at home all this time until he died. In the case of your aunt, though, perhaps I don't understand, since it seems based on what you have now said that you were projecting Obamacare on to the case where it doesn't actually relate and is rather about what you think the Republicans might do to Medicare. Is that right? This could be a bad situation, but from the concern you express I wonder whether you would actually let your aunt live on the street. Interesting that you would imply that I don't have a work ethic because I feel I can't afford to purchase health insurance. We do eat and we don't buy health insurance. It is a judgment call based on our own knowledge of our lifestyle, our income, and our priorities. As far as work ethic, I won't spend a lot of time justifying to you what is our business, but I am "tri"-vocational -- work a secular job, pastor a small church and am one of the primary caregivers for an elderly parent.

Matthew 25:31-46 indeed contains a great biblical lesson on helping people. To use this to charge those who are helping other people but don't want to take from someone else to help others, or that they don't take it seriously, is a charge beyond the teaching of the text. One of the difficulties of profitable discussion in this arena is that when someone has a different plan, different idea, they are often charged with not caring about the elderly, sick and infirm. [Note: my reference to those helping others is a reference to individual Christians and not specifically to politicians. While I believe there are politicians who care about others (neither party has a copyright on that), I am afraid that far too many politicians, Democrat and Republican, tend to favor whichever plan will get them re-elected. It is hard to trust that mentality.]

When we start justifying Obamacare or Trumpcare or whatever other versions we favor, there will always be stories that favor one way over the other. Everyone has a story. One of our stories is that before Obamacare my elderly mother had access to some in home nurse visits that were paid for by Medicare, but after Obamacare she was cut off. We didn't curse Obama, we just stepped up and did what we had to do. Any huge conglomeration of Federal Care is going to have pros & cons and benefits & unintended consequences.

Back to the original reason we were discussing this, if you don't see a difference between abortion and healthcare I have no further ability to explain it. Lack of healthcare insurance may end in death, disability or discomfort, but also may end in one getting better and living a long and prosperous life. I've found that there are many sicknesses from which one will recover in 6 days by staying home and taking care of yourself -- but from which one will recover in half a dozen days by going to the doctor and getting a prescription. On the other hand, successful abortions result in the death of 100% of the children aborted.

It seems as if you're in a similar situation to the one my brother was in before he was eligible for Medicare. I respect your commitment as a bi-vocational pastor. But I disagree with some of your points. ObamaCare made no changes to Medicare. I bet you simply ran into a difficult to deal with member of the bureaucracy. I do think govt. employees need to be held to a higher standard similar to the one that employees of private corporations are held to. Many of these people wouldn't last long working for a company rather than the gov. I use stories that I'm familiar with to try to demonstrate that not all of those who are helped by the govt. are welfare bums. Many people thing that's true. It's not as you know. You're arguing that since every aborted fetus will die but not 100% of people without access to medical care will in the short term does not hold water. Every one is precious to the Lord. Also causing 24M people to loose healthcare and cutting medicaid significantly will cause a lot of deaths. Own up to that fact. The Republican plan is to cut medical support while providing significant tax cuts to the rich and increasing funding for our already bloated military is a moral choice. I side with helping the needy. You side with the rich and the military. I'll stand before the Lord with my decision with no regrets. How about you?

 

[FollowTheWay]

I don't think you can prove that in pariticular.
IMO there are no real "villains" apart from human nature permeating all society and all our institutions.

Also, I am a believer in social medicine for ALL, proportionate to their ability to pay an equitable share (0 to 100%).

HankD

Insurance companies could cut off people who had expensive medical issues. I know that for a fact. Obamacare specifically did the opposite. It barred insurance companies from doing that. What is your argument?

 

[FollowTheWay]

How come nobody reported on those poor souls who died because the provider(s) (like Aetna) couldn't profit and offer a viable package and therefore backed out of ObamaCare leaving folks to die while wondering around the streets?

HankD

Insurance companies started backing out of ObamaCare offerings because it became uncertain whether it would survive the Republican attack.

 

[rlvaughn]

It seems as if you're in a similar situation to the one my brother was in before he was eligible for Medicare. I respect your commitment as a bi-vocational pastor. But I disagree with some of your points. ObamaCare made no changes to Medicare. I bet you simply ran into a difficult to deal with member of the bureaucracy. I do think govt. employees need to be held to a higher standard similar to the one that employees of private corporations are held to. Many of these people wouldn't last long working for a company rather than the gov.

Perhaps it was an uneducated bureaucrat who didn't understand the changes. What I do know is that it happened, and that it happened under Obamacare. I also understand that correlation does not mean causation.

I use stories that I'm familiar with to try to demonstrate that not all of those who are helped by the govt. are welfare bums. Many people think that's true. It's not as you know.

No objection to your using stories you're familiar with, but I do object to finding out they were not as you presented them to be. There are many people who are not bums who need help. Some need a help up. Some will need help until they die. Any system that provides help will also attract bums who try to beat the system. That's life. I don't favor any system that steals money from one to pay for another, and I don't favor systems that are so complex that neither the providers and nor the users understand what is going on. This whole mess began with companies providing insurance in a package as a hiring incentive under Obamacare morphed into a government mandate that they must do so. This seems quite reckless to me. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that if the government wants to provide health care they could do it by equally taxing all its citizens some way to do so. I am not recommending that this is the right way or best way, just that it would make more sense than this conglomeration we have that pretends to be government provided health care.

You're arguing that since every aborted fetus will die but not 100% of people without access to medical care will in the short term does not hold water. Every one is precious to the Lord. Also causing 24M people to loose healthcare and cutting medicaid significantly will cause a lot of deaths. Own up to that fact.

Nothing to own up to. Anyone who is not infatuated with a certain way of arguing in favor of healthcare can see the plain difference. To argue that they are not the same is not to argue that we hope people die from not having healthcare. It's just acknowledging plain facts of different ranges of relation to immediate causes of death.

The Republican plan is to cut medical support while providing significant tax cuts to the rich and increasing funding for our already bloated military is a moral choice. I side with helping the needy. You side with the rich and the military. I'll stand before the Lord with my decision with no regrets. How about you?

It is hard to discuss with someone who makes up his own facts about someone else. Where have you seen me argue in favor of the Republican plan? I'm sure it is as big a mess as what we've got now, just plays to different self-interests. Democrats also play to their self-interests. I've found that both of them want to pick my back pocket, just for different reasons. Neither did you read in what I wrote anything about siding with the rich and the military against the needy. I have plenty of regrets about plenty of things, but I have none regarding the current biblical light that I have on this topic.

Instead, as we've seen here, they want to cut off medical care for the needy to provide massive tax cuts for the rich.

Where have you seen that here?

 

[HankD]

Insurance companies could cut off people who had expensive medical issues. I know that for a fact. Obamacare specifically did the opposite. It barred insurance companies from doing that. What is your argument?

I don't have one apart from what I have already said.

I want equity for everyone.

HankD

 

[rlvaughn]

A discussion of topics that touch on political issues is easily distracted from a biblical foundation to our opinions. All of us have them. FollowTheWay objects to the way I have differentiated between abortion and health care. Yet this is not an altogether unusual way to differentiate the threats even by those who support the idea of universal health care. Some people have distinguished between immediate threats and secondary threats (or direct and indirect).

In Doing Right and Being Good (pg. 255) David Oki Ahearn, & Peter R. Gathje use this kind of distinction between abortion and war.

Not every moral issue undermines or threatens life in the same way. Abortion is the direct taking of human life (in my view) right now; nuclear, biological, or chemical war may happen and must be prevented, but is not happening now. That makes it a threat to life at this stage. Generally, the more direct and immediate is the life-taking, the more direct and immediate is our moral obligation to address it. In war, a distinction is drawn between the taking of innocent life and combatant life. Unless one is a pacifist, it is assumed that combatants will die in war and that this is morally permissible (though tragic) if the war is just. A consistent life ethic may lead one to pacifism, for me, it leads to a very strict application of just war theory and the desire for a culture and an international order that cherishes peace and life rather than reveling in death.

 

[rlvaughn]

A consistent pro-life ethic must be built on the foundation of the basic biblical teaching on life. These include:

• God is the author and creator of human life. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7; cf. Genesis 5:1; Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:24-26)
• God made man “in his own image” and “after [his] likeness” Genesis 1:26-27.
• God owns the keys of life and death (Revelation 1:18). Man should not intrude.
• Mankind is directly commanded to not /murder destroy human life. Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill.”
• Mankind is directly commanded to value others “as themselves” and “better than themselves”. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matthew 22:39)” and “in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves (Philippians 2:3).”

The simple biblical worldview is that God created man in his image and according to his purpose. Life comes from him and goes to him. By his own word he has disclaimed man taking the life of man as murder and contrary to his law and ethics. Taking the life of others exalts man into the place of God and proudly asserts one’s own being as above that of others. Further, each individual’s dealings with others must recognize God’s authorship and his more direct commands of rendering those dealings with love and humility. A consistent pro-life position must combine God’s definition of life, the Word’s teachings on life, as well as the Word’s teaching on each specific subject under consideration.

 

[rlvaughn]

Poverty is a quality of life/secondary threat issue. It could proceed to end in death, and things might get better.

Poverty (Hungry, Homeless, Orphans, Widows, etc.) [The condition of having little or no money, goods, or means in order to feed, clothe, shelter and support oneself] It is biblically clear and without question that Christians should seek the welfare of others and not themselves only. Pro-life does not just mean the opposite of death, but to promote better life for all. Poverty does not immediately end life in most cases, but an unethical system grinds the faces of the poor into the dust (Isaiah 3:15) -- while God's ethic “raiseth up the poor out of the dust” (Psalm 113:7). Much of the same mentality of the rich grinding the poor into the dust has also driven the bane of bigotry and racism. The Bible is clear on God's attitude of concern for the poor.

The rich, those in authority, etc. should not oppress the poor
Exodus 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (Cf. also Deut. 15:7-9; 24:12; Psalms 10:2; Proverbs 22:22) Proverbs 14:31 He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: but he that honoureth him hath mercy on the poor.

Judgment/right should be equal for all
Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. (Proverbs 11:1)

Poverty can be better than riches
Proverbs 16:8 Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right. (Cf. also Proverbs 19:1; 28:6)

Poverty will not be eradicated in this sinful world
John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. (But compare Deuteronomy 15:11; Proverbs 19:17; Galatians 2:10)

God does not encourage the poverty of laziness
Proverbs 20:4 The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. (Proverbs 19:15; Romans 12:11)

The consistent Christian view of sanctity of life serves the poor, neglected, injured, widows, orphans and so on, which is consistently enjoined in the Word of God. Some people need help, consistent, caring, Christian help. There are exceptions where we take a harder line against the sluggards and teach them they need to help themselves (2 Thessalonians 3:10). We may run across difficulties consistently applying our consistent pro-life position, but we must begin on the foundation of biblical teachings. "Pro-life" includes a right relationship with our neighbor, a life created in the image of God. Right relationships with neighbors include justice, special attention to the poor, etc. The problems of life, including poverty, go deeper than humanistic reasoning can fathom – deep into the sinful soul of man – deeper than can be fixed by wealth, education, change of environment, etc. Giving the gospel news is an integral part of loving our neighbor as well. (See 1 Corinthians 13:1; Matthew 22:36-40.)

 

[rlvaughn]

Opening his article Why It’s Consistent To Be Pro-Gun And Pro-Life Philip M. Greeley writes, “Proponents of gun control legislation are often staunch supporters of the nebulous ‘right to choose’ an abortion. Conversely, those who staunchly defend the right to keep and bear arms also frequently take the pro-life position.” Greeley believes the “right to life includes a right to self-defense.” He doesn't particularly make a Christian argument, but more of a philosophical and logical one, to my way of thinking.

His opening brings up two quality of life issues and sits them side-by-side. He believes there is a right to self-defense and that the right to keep and bear arms supports that right of self-defense. He sees an equality of life, in which not only unborn children have a right to life, but “anyone who has not forfeited that right through criminal action and society’s legal judgment.”

Gun rights/gun control [The entitlement of individuals to own and carry guns/regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms] Because of the deaths caused by the violent use of guns, the discussion of gun rights and gun control finds its way into a consistent pro-life discussion. Responsible gun ownership neither equals promotion of “death by gun,” nor violates any certain biblical principle. On the other hand, Christians should help promote a non-violent society within their obedience to the laws of their country.
Self-defense [the defense of one’s person or interests, especially through the use of physical force] Acting in self-defense, can a person on this occasion defend his or her life to the extent of taking the life of another person? A consistent pro-life position must consider whether self-defense is biblically justified, and may also consider that the greater good may be sometimes furthered by not seeking the defense of one’s own life (Mark 8:34-36).

Much biblical discussion of weapons is related to the topic of war. Yet there are times when the weapon is better described as for self-defense. For example, in Nehemiah 4:17, “They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.” Exodus 22:2-3 demonstrates under the law a person defending his home against the thief breaking in at night, even unto death: “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”

Jesus’s injunction in Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29 to “turn the other cheek” should be considered. It is a form of non-resistance, but to what extent? This is best understood of withholding retaliation for insults and offenses, which only escalates and multiplies the amount of evil – rather than withholding self-defense toward, say, a person intent on murdering you, your wife and your children.

Can we consistently be pro-life, pro-gun and pro self-defense?

 

[FollowTheWay]

How come nobody reported on those poor souls who died because the provider(s) (like Aetna) couldn't profit and offer a viable package and therefore backed out of ObamaCare leaving folks to die while wondering around the streets?

HankD

The insurance company viewed ObamaCare as having an uncertain future and weren't willing to risk its reversal (for good reason).

 

[FollowTheWay]

Thanks for clarifying. It is a wonderful blessing that your brother obtained the care he needed, in the way it happened. I for one would not expect doctors to do all their work for free, but it is nice when they are able to do so once in awhile. But you had made the point that he was one of the people who would had died had it not been for Obamacare, when in fact his case doesn't seem to be related to Obamacare at all. We have encounters with Alzheimers in our family, the results of one case I won't go into which has continued to have ongoing residual effects on many of us. Also an uncle had a wife who had Alzheimers that went on for probably 20 years -- starting with minor things you wouldn't think much of and progressing on to severe dementia. He cared for her at home all this time until he died. In the case of your aunt, though, perhaps I don't understand, since it seems based on what you have now said that you were projecting Obamacare on to the case where it doesn't actually relate and is rather about what you think the Republicans might do to Medicare. Is that right? This could be a bad situation, but from the concern you express I wonder whether you would actually let your aunt live on the street. Interesting that you would imply that I don't have a work ethic because I feel I can't afford to purchase health insurance. We do eat and we don't buy health insurance. It is a judgment call based on our own knowledge of our lifestyle, our income, and our priorities. As far as work ethic, I won't spend a lot of time justifying to you what is our business, but I am "tri"-vocational -- work a secular job, pastor a small church and am one of the primary caregivers for an elderly parent.

Matthew 25:31-46 indeed contains a great biblical lesson on helping people. To use this to charge those who are helping other people but don't want to take from someone else to help others, or that they don't take it seriously, is a charge beyond the teaching of the text. One of the difficulties of profitable discussion in this arena is that when someone has a different plan, different idea, they are often charged with not caring about the elderly, sick and infirm. [Note: my reference to those helping others is a reference to individual Christians and not specifically to politicians. While I believe there are politicians who care about others (neither party has a copyright on that), I am afraid that far too many politicians, Democrat and Republican, tend to favor whichever plan will get them re-elected. It is hard to trust that mentality.]

When we start justifying Obamacare or Trumpcare or whatever other versions we favor, there will always be stories that favor one way over the other. Everyone has a story. One of our stories is that before Obamacare my elderly mother had access to some in home nurse visits that were paid for by Medicare, but after Obamacare she was cut off. We didn't curse Obama, we just stepped up and did what we had to do. Any huge conglomeration of Federal Care is going to have pros & cons and benefits & unintended consequences.

Back to the original reason we were discussing this, if you don't see a difference between abortion and healthcare I have no further ability to explain it. Lack of healthcare insurance may end in death, disability or discomfort, but also may end in one getting better and living a long and prosperous life. I've found that there are many sicknesses from which one will recover in 6 days by staying home and taking care of yourself -- but from which one will recover in half a dozen days by going to the doctor and getting a prescription. On the other hand, successful abortions result in the death of 100% of the children aborted.

I respect your work ethic. Weren't you eligible for insurance at a reasonable price under ObamaCare? My brother took that option thereby obtaining his first insurance in a long time. My grandfather didn't believe in health insurance either but then got hit hard when my grandmother had a serious stroke and he had a heart attack. It's certainly an alternative but not a good one in my view. As far as supporting government efforts to help the needy I again see no difference in that and opposing legal abortion.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Perhaps it was an uneducated bureaucrat who didn't understand the changes. What I do know is that it happened, and that it happened under Obamacare. I also understand that correlation does not mean causation. No objection to your using stories you're familiar with, but I do object to finding out they were not as you presented them to be. There are many people who are not bums who need help. Some need a help up. Some will need help until they die. Any system that provides help will also attract bums who try to beat the system. That's life. I don't favor any system that steals money from one to pay for another, and I don't favor systems that are so complex that neither the providers and nor the users understand what is going on. This whole mess began with companies providing insurance in a package as a hiring incentive under Obamacare morphed into a government mandate that they must do so. This seems quite reckless to me. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that if the government wants to provide health care they could do it by equally taxing all its citizens some way to do so. I am not recommending that this is the right way or best way, just that it would make more sense than this conglomeration we have that pretends to be government provided health care.
Nothing to own up to. Anyone who is not infatuated with a certain way of arguing in favor of healthcare can see the plain difference. To argue that they are not the same is not to argue that we hope people die from not having healthcare. It's just acknowledging plain facts of different ranges of relation to immediate causes of death. It is hard to discuss with someone who makes up his own facts about someone else. Where have you seen me argue in favor of the Republican plan? I'm sure it is as big a mess as what we've got now, just plays to different self-interests. Democrats also play to their self-interests. I've found that both of them want to pick my back pocket, just for different reasons. Neither did you read in what I wrote anything about siding with the rich and the military against the needy. I have plenty of regrets about plenty of things, but I have none regarding the current biblical light that I have on this topic.
Where have you seen that here?

Billionaire Warren Buffett said Saturday that the GOP healthcare plan constitutes a "huge" tax cut for the wealthy.

"It is a huge tax cut for guys like me," Buffett said during the yearly Berkshire Hathaway shareholder gathering, as reported by Business Insider. Buffett: GOP healthcare plan a ‘huge tax cut for guys like me’

 

[rlvaughn]

Warren Buffett's opinion notwithstanding, your original commit implied that some of us posting here want to cut off medical care for the needy in order to provide massive tax cuts for the rich. Is that not what you meant?

 

[saved41199]

Pro-life in every situation:
Abortion - no
Death Penalty - no
War - no
Health Care - universal.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Perhaps it was an uneducated bureaucrat who didn't understand the changes. What I do know is that it happened, and that it happened under Obamacare. I also understand that correlation does not mean causation. No objection to your using stories you're familiar with, but I do object to finding out they were not as you presented them to be. There are many people who are not bums who need help. Some need a help up. Some will need help until they die. Any system that provides help will also attract bums who try to beat the system. That's life. I don't favor any system that steals money from one to pay for another, and I don't favor systems that are so complex that neither the providers and nor the users understand what is going on. This whole mess began with companies providing insurance in a package as a hiring incentive under Obamacare morphed into a government mandate that they must do so. This seems quite reckless to me. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that if the government wants to provide health care they could do it by equally taxing all its citizens some way to do so. I am not recommending that this is the right way or best way, just that it would make more sense than this conglomeration we have that pretends to be government provided health care.
Nothing to own up to. Anyone who is not infatuated with a certain way of arguing in favor of healthcare can see the plain difference. To argue that they are not the same is not to argue that we hope people die from not having healthcare. It's just acknowledging plain facts of different ranges of relation to immediate causes of death. It is hard to discuss with someone who makes up his own facts about someone else. Where have you seen me argue in favor of the Republican plan? I'm sure it is as big a mess as what we've got now, just plays to different self-interests. Democrats also play to their self-interests. I've found that both of them want to pick my back pocket, just for different reasons. Neither did you read in what I wrote anything about siding with the rich and the military against the needy. I have plenty of regrets about plenty of things, but I have none regarding the current biblical light that I have on this topic.
Where have you seen that here?

I was wrong. Obamacare did make some changes (all improvements) to Medicare. This is from medicare.gov, the best source. A lot of people are lying about Obamacare. It's best to get the real facts.

The Affordable Care Act & Medicare
Top 5 things to know about the health care law if you have Medicare:

1. Your Medicare coverage is protected.
   Medicare isn’t part of the Health Insurance Marketplace established by the health care law, so you don't have to replace your Medicare coverage with Marketplace coverage. No matter how you get Medicare, whether through Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage Plan, you’ll still have the same benefits and security you have now.
   
   You don’t need to do anything with the Marketplace during Open Enrollment.
   
   
2. You get more preventive services, for less. Medicare now covers certain preventive services, like mammograms or colonoscopies, without charging you for the Part B coinsurance or deductible. You also can get a free yearly "Wellness" visit.
3. You can save money on brand-name drugs. If you’re in the donut hole, you'll also get a 60% discount when buying Part D-covered brand-name prescription drugs. The discount is applied automatically at the counter of your pharmacy—you don’t have to do anything to get it. The donut hole will be closed completely by 2020.
4. Your doctor gets more support. With new initiatives to support care coordination, your doctor may get additional resources to make sure that your treatments are consistent.
5. The health care law ensures the protection of Medicare for years to come. The life of the Medicare Trust fund will be extended to at least 2029—a 12-year extension due to reductions in waste, fraud and abuse, and Medicare costs, which will provide you with future savings on your premiums and coinsurance.

The Affordable Care Act & Medicare | Medicare.gov

 

[FollowTheWay]

Pro-life in every situation:
Abortion - no
Death Penalty - no
War - no
Health Care - universal.

I agree with you entirely (except for abortion in the case where the mother's life is at risk and the survival of the baby is doubtful). Many people only think about abortion. The larger biblical and moral issue if the sanctity of life which is what you stated.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Perhaps it was an uneducated bureaucrat who didn't understand the changes. What I do know is that it happened, and that it happened under Obamacare. I also understand that correlation does not mean causation. No objection to your using stories you're familiar with, but I do object to finding out they were not as you presented them to be. There are many people who are not bums who need help. Some need a help up. Some will need help until they die. Any system that provides help will also attract bums who try to beat the system. That's life. I don't favor any system that steals money from one to pay for another, and I don't favor systems that are so complex that neither the providers and nor the users understand what is going on. This whole mess began with companies providing insurance in a package as a hiring incentive under Obamacare morphed into a government mandate that they must do so. This seems quite reckless to me. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it seems that if the government wants to provide health care they could do it by equally taxing all its citizens some way to do so. I am not recommending that this is the right way or best way, just that it would make more sense than this conglomeration we have that pretends to be government provided health care.
Nothing to own up to. Anyone who is not infatuated with a certain way of arguing in favor of healthcare can see the plain difference. To argue that they are not the same is not to argue that we hope people die from not having healthcare. It's just acknowledging plain facts of different ranges of relation to immediate causes of death. It is hard to discuss with someone who makes up his own facts about someone else. Where have you seen me argue in favor of the Republican plan? I'm sure it is as big a mess as what we've got now, just plays to different self-interests. Democrats also play to their self-interests. I've found that both of them want to pick my back pocket, just for different reasons. Neither did you read in what I wrote anything about siding with the rich and the military against the needy. I have plenty of regrets about plenty of things, but I have none regarding the current biblical light that I have on this topic.
Where have you seen that here?

I presented EXACTLY a true statement about my experiences. I am insulted that you're calling me a liar. Back up your statement that "they were not as you presented them to be."