An ignorant Limey asks...

[billwald]

US based on rebellion and hate of government

The US was started with a love of money and a war against our Christian Monarch and a hate of government. Nothing in the NT even hints that there is a "right" to vote on one's taxes.


Compare the US, Canada, and the western expansion. Canada is noted for the RCMP who kept peace and order and enabled farmers to expand into the west in peace.

The US is noted for our "wild west" where uncivilized people, losers, and bad neighbors could "go west" to rape, rob, shoot each other, and steal every kind of asset from the Indian People.

Yes, both countries ill treated the Indian People but the Canadians thought they were saving souls and civilizing the "savages." Canadians were not noted for treaty breaking, far as I know.

The US made many treaties that forced the Indian People into land the white people thought was useless. As soon as something of value was discovered, treaties were broken. The "Trail Of Tears" was only the start.

After Lincoln's War we had the "Monroe Doctrine" and "Manifest Destiny," the God Given Right to commercially dominate south and central America and start civil wars when the locals decided THEY wanted some freedom.

Nothing has changed since 1776 except our owners put one over on the working class with the Constitutional Convention.

 

[targus]

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

Let's put this into context.

This massive spending bill follows on the heels of a massive "stimulus" spending bill which was actually a wish list of special interst spending which had nothing to do with economic stimulus.

The lawmakers rushed it through with no public debate and while admitting that not one single one of those voting actually read the bill.

Now we have this massive "health care" bill which supposedly is to provide health care to a supposed 47 million without insurance.

The problem is that there are not 47 million without health care. A number of those are illegal imigrants, those who are eligable for other current government health care programs but simply have not bothered to sign up, and those who are affluent enough to purchase insurance but don't want to spend the money.

And again, those who are pushing the bill and will be voting on the bill again have admitted and now are even defending not reading the bill. Can you fathom that?

The net result is that citizens who have bothered to learn what is in this bill have been showing up at these meetings and asking questions about the bill are being told - "We the legislators can not be expected to read the bill" - "We are too busy to read the bill" - "You are listening to rumors" - "Thats a lie" etc. But the very lawmakers who are pushing this bill cannot answer questions concerning specifics of the bill.

So now it is a point of frustration for many concerned citizens who will be adversely affected by this "health care bill" who are currently satisfied with what they have but see the government taking it away and limiting our choices.

Oh yes - we need to add the cherry on the top. The ruling class who is forcing this change in our health care system exempt themselves from it. You see they have a special plan for themselves which includes all the private health insurance companies which they are demonizing as being so bad for the average citizen.

Tell me, in your country are there two heath care systems - one for the average person and another superior system for the ruling elite who make the laws for everyone else?

 

[HankD]

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.

You're correct about the abuses Matt, but the abuse of that right documented by our founding fathers is bipartisan and not because we are Americans but because we are human (not an excuse but an explanation) as you know. We shouldn't loose sight of that.

Also, I believe that some or maybe even much of the "heckling" is proper under the American Right of Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Also some Americans have been accused of a "mob mentality" by those of the political majority.

Again this so called "mob mentality" has to do with another freedom provided by the documents of our founding fathers called the Freedom of Association: The Freedom of Association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests assuming no violence is done.

Yes, oft times the expression of these rights have crossed the line into a violent expression and thereby not in accord with those documents.

Does this sound like an obsession with the rights provided by our founding documents?

Indeed it is. It is why we broke from the Crown and the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans has been shed to protect these rights.

HankD

 

[Matt Black]

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

But if you're happy for it to erode your freedoms for the purpose of protecting lives through defence, what's the moral problem with allowing it to do so to protect more lives through extending healthcare coverage?

Tim and HankD - don't you get a chance to vote at least some of them out next year if they continue to ignore you in this way?

Targus - yes and no: the NHS provides healthcare for all, regardless of financial means. But for non-urgent treatment, you have to stand in line. If however you want to pay privately (in addition to your taxes for healthcare), then you can get non-urgent treatment, in a 'deluxe' setting, right away. That's what our 'elite' do I guess; if they want to waste their money that way, that's up to them I guess - I've never felt the need and I'm a fairly high-earning lawyer who's always found the NHS adequate for my needs and those of my family*

*Actually, not quite: I have a heat-sensitive skin condition and once paid £100 to see a consultant dermatologist privately because I was due to go on honeymoon to a hot climate and didn't want to wait a few months to see him on the NHS. But that was my choice; I didn't have to do that.

 

[Revmitchell]

But if you're happy for it to erode your freedoms for the purpose of protecting lives through defence, what's the moral problem with allowing it to do so to protect more lives through extending healthcare coverage?

The constitution gives authority for defense. It does not give authority for medical needs. And no ones freedom has been diminished by the patriot act.

 

[targus]

But if you're happy for it to erode your freedoms for the purpose of protecting lives through defence, what's the moral problem with allowing it to do so to protect more lives through extending healthcare coverage?

Matt, see post 22.

 

[NiteShift]

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.

The House Democrat leadership sent out a memo to their members asking them to hold town hall meetings. The memo states in part: "Winning the health reform debate in August requires nothing less than an aggressive, multi-front effort to control the message...The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August."

President Obama sent out an email to supporters saying, "This is the moment our movement was built for...That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month...where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act."


So you can see that the Dems are pushing this reform hard and coordinating with outside groups, and you can't blame protesters for feeling that this legislation is being forced on us all. Granted, protesters have gotten loud, but there was no violence and nobody was pushed around till union muscle was used against them. See HERE .

 

[Aaron]

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

Because it doesn't bring into consideration the "whole counsel of God" by which we discern the scope and purpose of civil government. If Jesus were in Congress, He would not endorse any legislation that takes wealth from one individual to finance the personal needs of another.

Really? I wasn't aware it was US tax dollars propping up the NHS.

It props up your entire nation, without which prop your "NHS" could not work.

Please give evidence for this.

Disbursements of U.S. foreign aide are easily found on the Internet.

Which [facts]?

See above.

[

 

[rbell]

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:

Bumped...a fantastic post on the subject. Well said.

 

[Matt Black]

The constitution gives authority for defense. It does not give authority for medical needs. And no ones freedom has been diminished by the patriot act.

Two points in return:

1. As a Christian (and a minister no less!) , do you not think that, regardless of what the Constitution may or may not say (and the Constitution may of course be amended), saving and protecting lives through enhanced medical care coverage is at least as great a moral imperative as doing so through national defence? (I'm asking you to answer as a Christian first, and an American second.)

2. The USA PATRIOT Act allows, inter alia, phone taps, apprehension and detention without trial: in what way do these not diminish freedom?!

Aaron, I'm at work; I don't have time to go Googling. If you're going to make these claims, you really need to substantiate these with evidence of your own, Last time I looked, the UK wasn't on the list of Third World countries qualifying for US hand-outs. And as for your 'whole counsel of God' statement, well, YMMV, but I very much doubt that the OT prophets would agree with you. I think it is far more likely that Jesus would disapprove of the defence budget (of course He would have a problem with the funding of abortion which is a disturbing aspect of this healthcare package - but I hope we can all agree at least on that point.)

NiteShift - I begin to understand the frustrations now. Both 'sides' seem to be violating Godwin's Law in this 'debate', which really isn't healthy for democracy.

 

[HankD]

Hi again Matt,

RE:Vote them out. Indeed I will try.

Problem: I am unyielding pro-life and it's becoming difficult to find honest pro-life candidates.

The remainder of my venue is a mix and I'm not exactly a conservative by American standards.
I probably cross over into the liberal side when it comes to entitlements for the underprivileged.


Beef:The current administration gives the appearance of a desire to bring us into a kind of socialism flavored government under the guise of these colossal takeover "bail-outs" and now the latest government run health program.

We seem to have come full circle: Taxation (disguised under different names -"stimulas package", "cap and trade", "health reform",etc) without representation.


Bottom line: I can live under any government.
As Christians we are pilgrims here.
Our eternal state will be in that city not built with hands.


While I am here however, I have been afforded certain unalienable rights by my Creator which, if God wills, I fully intend to exercise.


I appreciate your thoughtfulness and demeanor Matt.


HankD

 

[go2church]

Because it doesn't bring into consideration the "whole counsel of God" by which we discern the scope and purpose of civil government. If Jesus were in Congress, He would not endorse any legislation that takes wealth from one individual to finance the personal needs of another.

It props up your entire nation, without which prop your "NHS" could not work.

Disbursements of U.S. foreign aide are easily found on the Internet.
, his
See above.

[

Matthew 25:31-46 would seem to differ with you on this and that is not even addressing the point that Jesus would most likely never be in the legislature, his kingdom was not of this world.

 

[Matt Black]

Indeed. And that's before you start trawling through the OT prophets (particularly the minor ones), the Law and the OT Wisdom literature. For example,
Amos is particularly ‘anti-rich’, attacking their lifestyles and their abuse of the poor, together with injustice and judicial bribery (Amos 2:6-7; 3:15; 5:7; 5:12-13; 6:4-5). This is unacceptable to God (Amos 5:21-24). Micah is equally critical: the rich appropriate others’ property and destroy the poor (Micah 2:2; 3:2-3). Similar themes can be found in Isaiah 3:14-15; 10:1-4 and 58:1-6.

It does not necessarily follow from the above, however, that the prophets were categorically against people having wealth; it would appear that they were more concerned about how that wealth was acquired and at whose expense. Nevertheless, the dominant theme of prophetic diatribe against the secular and religious establishment seems to be that of justice for the poor, widows and orphans.

 

[billwald]

Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the general welfare and regulate interstate commerce. Hard to argue that Medicare (and whatever) doesn't promote the general welfare and insurance companies are not involved in interstate commerce.

 

[Revmitchell]

Constitution authorizes Congress to promote the general welfare and regulate interstate commerce. Hard to argue that Medicare (and whatever) doesn't promote the general welfare and insurance companies are not involved in interstate commerce.

It is not hard to argue at all since :

1. The term General welfare was never intended to be a catch all
2. Medicare is not specifically listed as a purpose of the constitution.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not hard to argue at all since :

1. The term General welfare was never intended to be a catch all
2. Medicare is not specifically listed as a purpose of the constitution.

Hmmmmmmm.....

Catchall: Something that encompasses a wide variety of items or situations

General: 1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2 : involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group


Very interesting.

 

[Matt Black]

The most ludicrous claim put about by the opponents of the reform is the idea that we have 'death panels' who decide whether to euthanase elderly patients and that if Stephen Hawking lived in the UK, the NHS would have allowed him to die. Well, Prof Hawking has now issued a statement saying that...er...he does live in the UK and wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the NHS...

As for the bureaucracy concern, well, yes, the NHS probably has more managers and administrators than it should. But that can be said of most organisations; health insurance companies need people to do the admin and probably have more than they should; plus, not being supervised from the centre, I would hazard a guess that there is more of an element of duplication and thus waste in an insurance-based system. That might in part account for why the US spends nearly twice as much of GDP on healthcare as we do in the UK, but we still rank higher in terms of provision. You do the math...

 

[Aaron]

Matthew 25:31-46 would seem to differ with you on this and that is not even addressing the point that Jesus would most likely never be in the legislature, his kingdom was not of this world.

You need to board this train at the station. If you had, you might have seen I was answering Black's assertion that Jesus would endorse government-run healthcare.

 

[Matt Black]

Er...I don't think I quite said that. I said that Jesus would endorse a system which extended healthcare to the most vulnerable members of society. So there are two legs to agree or disagree with me on:

1. Whether Jesus would endorse the poor and vulnerable being in receipt of free healthcare (for the record it is that statement in respect of which I made the comment 'an emphatic yes').

2. Whether a government-led system of healthcare is the best way to achieve #1. I have no idea whether Jesus would endorse that method of delivery at all or whether He would be opposed to it. As a Brit though who has experienced such a system first hand, I do endorse and commend it to you, partly for the reasons set out in my last post.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Er...I don't think I quite said that. I said that Jesus would endorse a system which extended healthcare to the most vulnerable members of society. So there are two legs to agree or disagree with me on:

1. Whether Jesus would endorse the poor and vulnerable being in receipt of free healthcare (for the record it is that statement in respect of which I made the comment 'an emphatic yes').

2. Whether a government-led system of healthcare is the best way to achieve #1. I have no idea whether Jesus would endorse that method of delivery at all or whether He would be opposed to it. As a Brit though who has experienced such a system first hand, I do endorse and commend it to you, partly for the reasons set out in my last post.

Matt in general I agree with you. I think though that the US is going about it all wrong. We're trying to build this from scratch rather than taking the cues from the UK, Norway, etc... to find their faults and inefficiencies and apply it better here. What we will invariably get is something that only benefits a few and the majority of americans will end up with worse healthcare than any other country in the world. I'm not sure I want to go in that direction.