An ignorant Limey asks...

[Matt Black]

...why all the violent fuss about healthcare reform in the US? I suspect this is one of those major major cross-cultural differences, even (especially?) among Christians.

I can only speak from my perspective as a UK Christian, but I can't see anything wrong with trying to extend healthcare protection to the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable members of society. If I ask myself the question, 'what would Jesus do?' on this issue, the answer is a most emphatic 'yes!' (indeed, He has said as much through many of the OT prophets); and if the better-off have to pay for that, then so be it (Dives and Lazarus, anyone?). For all we moan about our UK National Health Service, it does by and large work; I don't lie awake at night wondering wheter I'll be able to afford medical treatment if I or my children fall ill, as many Americans whom I talk with do. I can only say then that I was profoundly shocked and dismayed by the scenes on my TV last night, of what appeared to be howling mobs shouting down Congressmen at town hall meetings to discuss the proposals. That strikes me as neither democratic nor particularly Christian (assuming, as I suspect, that some at least of these folks were Christian); surely the point of having a debate is to hear both sides and to grant each side a fair hearing?

So, I can only conclude that I'm missing something vital here? Maybe these healthcare reforms won't really help the poor and needy? Anyone care to enlighten me? Or are we just talking a cross-cultural difference; two groups of Christians divided by a common language?

 

[targus]

It's a case of not wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Instead of taking away what works for the vast majority - many would prefer to see targeted solutions that address the needs of the uninsured.

Someone who is uninsured because he is between jobs does not need the same solution as someone who is chronicly underemployed.

Someone who is relatively affluent but chooses not to purchase their own insurance should not be a reason to mess with my insurance.

And so on.

 

[Matt Black]

So far, so good, on your list. But why the vitriol at these public meetings? Why not put these counter-proposals to your Representatives in a calm and collected manner? ISTM that it's counter-productive to heckle rather than wait your turn to prove your point.

(I don't mean 'you' personally of course.:smilewinkgrin

 

[billreber]

First of, I have not been to any of these so-called "town hall meetings".

From my perspective, the rancor in many cases has come, not to STOP health care reform, but from the people frustrated because the so-called "reform" changes the things that are good into things that are bad, combined with the impression that the Democrats who are in charge refuse to listen to anybody else.

For example, as a Christian, I would be forced to pay for abortions (for other people) while I believe abortions are evil and should never be done. While many politicians have been saying abortion is not in the bill, that is the problem. Abortion is often included by the Democrats by using the phrase "comprehensive health care" or "reproductive health care". Both of these phrases ARE included in the bill!

Another example is the wording that establishes a government committee that will establish "normal and acceptable" healthcare guidelines. My doctor is the best source to determine what healthcare I need, not some bureaucrats in Washington DC!

In addition, about 85 percent of Americans have good health care. Under the current bills being discussed, many of these "good" insurance plans would end up being replaced by policies that provide less care for more money. That is because the "public option" insurance would be cheaper than the current policies for companies to buy. In fact, there was (and may still be there, I don't know) wording in the bill that would have canceled many "private" insurance plans if there was any change involving the policy. That means, if you had ANY change in the policy whatsoever for any reason, the policy was then canceled by LAW, not by the patient or the insurance company. What would replace it? The public option, of course!

I saw a video yesterday (through a Baptist Board thread - sorry, I don't know where it is now) that showed the police telling non-supporters of the healthcare reforms that they could not talk to those who were in line to go in to one of these "town hall meetings". In America, we are supposed to have free speech, especially on public sidewalks. The person being told NOT to talk was accused of being "sent by the Republicans", even though they were citizens living in that town, and had every right to talk with their fellow citizens. THAT makes me wonder if the Democrats (and their supporters ACORN, which was also involved) are trying to force something they KNOW is wrong down the throats of the American people.

Or is it a matter of the supporters simplying not wanting to hear opposition? Either way, the Democrats are trying to stop open discussion, which violates one of the purposes of "town hall meetings". That makes some people VERY angry, which leads to shouting matches at those meetings. I have personally seen a letter from a Democratic Senator to a constituent, in which the Senator basicly said "We know better than you what you need. Let us take care of it". (That letter did NOT relate to healthcare. However, the attitude disturbs me). I cannot help but wonder if the reasons for the rancor is because someone has said that they "know better" what you need.

I would like to point out that in America it is currently possible to get health care, even if you are destitute and cannot afford to pay for the care or for insurance. Part of the cost to PAYING patients is used to offset the costs of care for NON-PAYING patients.

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Aaron]

If I ask myself the question, 'what would Jesus do?' on this issue, the answer is a most emphatic 'yes!'.

Bad theology breeds bad politics.

For all we moan about our UK National Health Service, it does by and large work;

Thanks to billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid.

So, I can only conclude that I'm missing something vital here?

All the facts.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Matt, there is a lot of misinformation being circulated to stir up the masses against it. The insurance industry is one of the biggest political lobbies in the country. They hate to see their cash cow die. They would rather let people die.

 

[Matt Black]

Bad theology breeds bad politics.

Please elaborate as to why and how this is bad theology.

Thanks to billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid.

Really? I wasn't aware it was US tax dollars propping up the NHS. Please give evidence for this.

All the facts.

Which ones? As indicated above, I don't see any evidence of the US pumping money into the NHS. If you're wrong about that 'fact', how reliable are your 'facts'?

 

[HankD]

...why all the violent fuss about healthcare reform in the US? I suspect this is one of those major major cross-cultural differences, even (especially?) among Christians.

I can only speak from my perspective as a UK Christian, but I can't see anything wrong with trying to extend healthcare protection to the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable members of society. If I ask myself the question, 'what would Jesus do?' on this issue, the answer is a most emphatic 'yes!' (indeed, He has said as much through many of the OT prophets); and if the better-off have to pay for that, then so be it (Dives and Lazarus, anyone?). For all we moan about our UK National Health Service, it does by and large work; I don't lie awake at night wondering wheter I'll be able to afford medical treatment if I or my children fall ill, as many Americans whom I talk with do. I can only say then that I was profoundly shocked and dismayed by the scenes on my TV last night, of what appeared to be howling mobs shouting down Congressmen at town hall meetings to discuss the proposals. That strikes me as neither democratic nor particularly Christian (assuming, as I suspect, that some at least of these folks were Christian); surely the point of having a debate is to hear both sides and to grant each side a fair hearing?

So, I can only conclude that I'm missing something vital here? Maybe these healthcare reforms won't really help the poor and needy? Anyone care to enlighten me? Or are we just talking a cross-cultural difference; two groups of Christians divided by a common language?

Hi Matt,

It's called the Redress of grievances: The right to petition the government is the freedom of individuals (and sometimes groups and corporations) to petition their government for a correction or repair of some form of injustice without fear of punishment for the same.

OK, maybe we have become paranoid or at least suspicious. But perhaps with good cause. It began with the complaint that the bill (HR3200) was not as presented by the president. The entire text (1036 pages) can be downloaded and perused on:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

Presently on opencongress.org only 14% of those who have logged in to express their view support the bill.

True, some have gone overboard in the exercise of the Right to Redress of Grievances but it's certainly not the first time and it happens across the political affiliation arena here in our beloved Nation.

It's our Legacy, you should understand that Matt,(July 4,1776).

Adding to the frustration were several bipartisan remarks such as conservatives accusing the dems of "national socialism" and the president accusing dissenters of making "fishy" remarks, the president giving a website to report said fish.

HankD

 

[Matt Black]

OK, but I don't call heckling a 'redress of grievances' or ' petitioning the government'; it seems if anything to lower the level of goodwill towards the 'antis'.

And, yes, I do understand that your political system has a quite different origin from ours (crudely speaking, it's 'individuals associating' -v- 'reformed Crown-feudalism') and that therefore there's going to be a degree of mutual unintelligibility between our two systems.

 

[Revmitchell]

OK, but I don't call heckling a 'redress of grievances' or ' petitioning the government'; it seems if anything to lower the level of goodwill towards the 'antis'.

And, yes, I do understand that your political system has a quite different origin from ours (crudely speaking, it's 'individuals associating' -v- 'reformed Crown-feudalism') and that therefore there's going to be a degree of mutual unintelligibility between our two systems.

Attempting to stack meetings and using union thugs to be bouncers to ensure that the majority if not all of the people in attendance at these town hall meetings are only supporters is not addressing the American people either. Planning to pass this whether the American people want it is unAmerican. Doing anything that is contrary to our countries founding such a socialistic programs is unamerican. And planning to limit services based on what is good for all rather than address the individual need is just evil.

The vast majority of Americans do not want socialism in this country.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't see how having a government-led healthcare programme is 'socialism'; we have the NHS and we're scarcely the old Soviet Union!

And there didn't seem to be any absence of anti-government protesters at these meetings (who do you think was doing the heckling and hollering?) so presumably these 'union thugs' didn't do their jobs very well.

 

[canadyjd]

...why all the violent fuss about healthcare reform in the US? I suspect this is one of those major major cross-cultural differences, even (especially?) among Christians.

So, I can only conclude that I'm missing something vital here?......

Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

Americans built this country on the concept of freedom from the government, limiting the power men can exercise over its citizens.

Intrinsic in our founders understanding of government was that men always tend toward evil and will abuse the powers given if unchecked.

What you are seeing is a philisophical fight, one the one hand, to extend government control in the lives of its citizens, and on the other to limit the scope of government to preserve freedoms.

peace to youraying:

 

[Revmitchell]

1. We do not want that kind of control over our lives. The Federal government is being used to control behavior beyond what is reasonable. The Democrats only want power. Their motivation is neither honest no honorable. It is simply a pretense.

2. The method of socialists is not the only or the best way to address problems. And much of the hysteria behind the problems is fabricated to gain political power.

 

[Matt Black]

What about the PATRIOT Act, then?

 

[Revmitchell]

What about the PATRIOT Act, then?

1. Point out who here supports the patriot act

2. How does the patriot act control peoples lives

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1. Point out who here supports the patriot act

2. How does the patriot act control peoples lives

I don't think anyone here in their right mind supports the Patriot act. However, how much nonsense have we seen with Homeland security?

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't think anyone here in their right mind supports the Patriot act. However, how much nonsense have we seen with Homeland security?

Not relevant

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not saying that anyone here supports the PATRIOT Act (some may, some may not), just pointing out that this is not the first time that the Federal government has broadened its reach, as it were, nor is that broadening the preserve of just one political party.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm not saying that anyone here supports the PATRIOT Act (some may, some may not), just pointing out that this is not the first time that the Federal government has broadened its reach, as it were, nor is that broadening the preserve of just one political party.

The American Federal government has a constitutional authority for military matters. It has none on medical matters.

 

[tinytim]

So far, so good, on your list. But why the vitriol at these public meetings? Why not put these counter-proposals to your Representatives in a calm and collected manner? ISTM that it's counter-productive to heckle rather than wait your turn to prove your point.

(I don't mean 'you' personally of course.:smilewinkgrin

Matt, a lot of the anger is the fact that our Reps are NOT listening to us.
They, since they were voted in, and have been there for DECADES.. think they know more than we do on how to live OUR lives.

I for one have tried and tried to contact my reps... Federal and State.. guess what? NO RESPONSE FROM THEM...

And my friends that do get a hearing, the reps only give them the pat answers and nothing is ever done.

I am tired of being ignored. And I feel these people are tired too... so tired that if we have to YELL to get it through the thick skulls of the know-it-all reps.. we will.

I personally believe, and this is just my personal opinion, that if the ones that represent us would FAIRLY listen to us.. then we wouldn't have to shout.

I also believe that this is the underlying issue that is causing all the yelling.

The reps ignored the Tea parties.. and called us kooks, and losers.. .now those reps want us to respect them when they talk down to us, like they know better.. .when in fact only the ignorant would spend 4 times more to get elected to an office than the office ever pays.

Maybe that's the problem... We are electing people who will spend millions of dollars to get elected to a job that only pays thousands of dollars... and then we expect them to do a good job managing our money!....

Hmmm.. I think I am on to something.