Go ahead and pound me: But I believe the Government should be involved in healthcare.

[Havensdad]

I know a lot of my conservative friends (I myself am socially conservative, but fiscally moderate) might disagree with me; I DO believe in small government, to some extent. But I believe that the government SHOULD be in control of health care.

Why? Well the first reason is theological. I believe that Roman 13:4 teaches a basic theological truth: the earthly powers which God has established, are responsible for the physical well being of it's people, just as the Church is responsible for the spiritual well being. In this day and age, this applies not just to law enforcement, but also medical care.

Saving people's lives is the one area in which capitalism should not apply: at least in the application of it to individuals. "Big Business" health care, such as we have now, does not support free enterprise: it is for all intents and purposes the implementation of a caste system, where the rich who can pay for the proper medical care can live, and those who cannot die. This, frankly, is disgusting.

Imagine for a moment if we took this idea to the front steps of a hospital. On the right, a little girl, whose parents are poor, that needs a liver to survive. On the left, Bill Gates, who needs that same liver. In some instances, even if the little girl were at the top of the donor list, she would be skipped over, due to an inability to pay.

This is sickening. Who recieves medical care, should not be based on ones social status. While I agree that most forms of income redistribution are wrong (welfare), medical care is something different. We are not speaking of making sure everyone has a car and a T.V. here; we are talking about the right to life! The very thing that we Christians fight so hard for!

Republicans keep talking about just "making health care affordable to everyone." Speaking for myself, I have three children, a wife, I am going to school full time, and working my patooty off too. In order for health care to be "affordable" to me, it would have to be free.

If our idiotic conservative friends in the House and Senate, would quit opposing the health care bill, and instead put all of their efforts into putting in protections for the unborn, we would all be better off.

BTW: I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!

 

[exscentric]

"I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!"

And you will pay for all this retraining how? And why retrain these and not the millions out of work right now that need retraining that are doing it on their own.

Mother government picking and choosing as she wills to bless those she chooses and taxing those she does not may be your choice but .... :tonofbricks:

 

[Havensdad]

"I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!"

And you will pay for all this retraining how? And why retrain these and not the millions out of work right now that need retraining that are doing it on their own.

This last was a bit of a joke. I consider the IRS unconstitutional, not to mention expensive and stupid. I am a firm believer in a flat taxation.

Mother government picking and choosing as she wills to bless those she chooses and taxing those she does not may be your choice but .... :tonofbricks:

Uh, when did I ever say anything like that? 93,000 people (IRS employees) being laid off all at once, by the dissolution of the IRS, would probably collapse an already flailing economy. I was trying to come up with a humorous solution to this, by removing people from an organization that should not exist, and placing them in a legitimate one.

 

[rbell]

An easy rebuttal to such a ridiculous position:

With government money, comes government control.

Now...if you can (with a straight face) accept that truth...and not throw up...perhaps we can talk (or at least get you some counseling).

 

[abcgrad94]

Havensdad, the problem with your idea is you're assuming the powers that be actually care about others and will look out for their best interests. Not so. Our government is very corrupt. Look at the mess they have made with Social Security. What sane person could possibly conclude they'd do better with the whole spectrum of healthcare?

Also, where does one draw the line at allowing the government to control the physical being of it's people? For me, the line is drawn between a man's responsibility to provide for his family, and the individual's DUTY to think for oneself. It is my dh's job to work and provide for his home, not the government's responsibility. It is our job to feed, clothe, teach, and protect our children, not Uncle Sam's. It's the government's job to protect the nation as a whole, not intrude on the rights and responsibilities of individuals.

The reason we have so much welfare in the US is because too many men (especially young men) refuse to accept their God given responsibility. They'd rather father children for the taxpayer to raise.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The government is already running a health care program for many ... both Medicare and Medicaid for seniors ... and the VA health system for veterans.

Oh, and from what I hear they run a very good healthcare system for senators and representatives.

The health insurance for government workers is government run also ... oversight is to run.

Critics seem to overlook this point in their objections.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I know a lot of my conservative friends (I myself am socially conservative, but fiscally moderate) might disagree with me; I DO believe in small government, to some extent. But I believe that the government SHOULD be in control of health care.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat; I also believe in limited government in the sense of protecting individual liberty, etc. I don't support a single payer system, but I do support a viable public option.

Why? Well the first reason is theological.

I disagree. I don't think that this is a theological issue either way, but rather one of policy.

Saving people's lives is the one area in which capitalism should not apply: ... we are talking about the right to life! The very thing that we Christians fight so hard for!

Again, I don't think health care is a right to life issue like abortion. Not providing health care is not a violation of rights like the Patriot Act, etc. However, the government, in my view, is not limited to protecting rights. If we, through our elected representatives, want a public option, we can get that, and we should.

Republicans keep talking about just "making health care affordable to everyone." Speaking for myself, I have three children, a wife, I am going to school full time, and working my patooty off too. In order for health care to be "affordable" to me, it would have to be free.

Republicans also talk about deficits but Bush/Cheney ran up huge deficits. I find it ironic that wars don't have to be deficit neutral but we can't reform healthcare even if it is, according to the connies.

I'm going to college full time too, and looking for a job. I have been temping, which helps (right now I'm working in a men's clothing store). If I were not on my grandfather's insurance through his work (I live with him), I'd be uninsured.

 

[Tom Bryant]

A couple of random thoughts...

The same government that has made such a winner out of our school system can run our health care. :laugh:

So the gov't is to care for our physical well being... pretty novel view of that passage. So you'll welcome the gov't into how you discipling your child? ... or whether that throw rug in your house is dangerous because someone might trip? ... whether your wife can have another child because she is older now and her health is at stake?

Oh, and the gov't health care will help pay for the abortions that you want conservatives to fight.

Not going to pound you, just think your ideas would welcome the gov't into areas you would never want them.

 

[KenH]

You may find this - www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10646 - to be a better idea than relying on the heavy hand of government, Havensdad.

 

[abcgrad94]

The government is already running a health care program for many ... both Medicare and Medicaid for seniors ... and the VA health system for veterans.

Oh, and from what I hear they run a very good healthcare system for senators and representatives.

Critics seem to overlook this point in their objections.

Oh no, we don't overlook it, we're taking it into consideration! These examples are exactly why we don't need any MORE government involvement in our healthcare!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Why? Well the first reason is theological. I believe that Roman 13:4 teaches a basic theological truth: the earthly powers which God has established, are responsible for the physical well being of it's people

, just as the Church is responsible for the spiritual well being. In this day and age, this applies not just to law enforcement, but also medical care.[/quote]

Gee. A liberal taking Bible verses out of context. Why, I'm shocked!

Please read the whole passage. Romans 13:4 says nothing about taking care of people's physical needs.

"Big Business" health care, such as we have now, does not support free enterprise: it is for all intents and purposes the implementation of a caste system, where the rich who can pay for the proper medical care can live, and those who cannot die. This, frankly, is disgusting.

Actually, those who can't don't die. Please show some statistics that show numbers of all of the people dying in the street because they can't afford health care.

Imagine for a moment if we took this idea to the front steps of a hospital. On the right, a little girl, whose parents are poor, that needs a liver to survive. On the left, Bill Gates, who needs that same liver. In some instances, even if the little girl were at the top of the donor list, she would be skipped over, due to an inability to pay.

The words of Paul Simon's song, "The Boxer" comes to mind: "Lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie lie lie lie..."

Actually, she wouldn't be passed over due to an inability to pay. As a former paramedic and as a former social worker, I can tell you from experience that there are many, many alternative ways to obtain medical care.

While I agree that most forms of income redistribution are wrong (welfare)

Why is that wrong?

we are talking about the right to life! The very thing that we Christians fight so hard for!

They do have the right to life. They do not have the right to compell someone to provide services for them.

Republicans keep talking about just "making health care affordable to everyone." Speaking for myself, I have three children, a wife, I am going to school full time, and working my patooty off too. In order for health care to be "affordable" to me, it would have to be free.

Yeah, God forbid you should sacrifice in another area to pay your own way.

If our idiotic conservative friends...

And there we have it.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror. You're the one condemning the free market system without even understanding how the health care industry works. That's idiotic.

BTW: I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!

So much for believing in small government.

 

[Aaron]

Well the first reason is theological. I believe that Roman 13:4 teaches a basic theological truth: the earthly powers which God has established, are responsible for the physical well being of it's people . . .

Romans 13 says nothing of the sort. Romans 13 gives government a sword for the purpose of terrorizing evil doers and avenging the victims of crime.

Saving people's lives is the one area in which capitalism should not apply: at least in the application of it to individuals. "Big Business" health care, such as we have now, does not support free enterprise: it is for all intents and purposes the implementation of a caste system, where the rich who can pay for the proper medical care can live, and those who cannot die. This, frankly, is disgusting.

The health industry is the most regulated industry in the country. In fact, it's the government involvement that has made the mess of the health care system in the first place.

Imagine for a moment if we took this idea to the front steps of a hospital. On the right, a little girl, whose parents are poor, that needs a liver to survive. On the left, Bill Gates, who needs that same liver. In some instances, even if the little girl were at the top of the donor list, she would be skipped over, due to an inability to pay.

Your hypothetical situation is a fairytale born of cable news. You need to turn off CNN and start thinking for yourself. There is no end of charities for the health care of children. (That will soon end, though.) There is a hospital in my town that is one of the best in the nation that would get that liver for the little girl at no expense to her or her parents.

This is sickening. Who recieves medical care, should not be based on ones social status.

And it isn't.

I'm going to pound you, not because you believe in nationalized health care, but because you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know jack about what is going on in the world.

 

[Havensdad]

All of you guys who are talking about medical help being available to "anyone" are quite frankly, full of it.

My sister was born with a birth defect in her heart. She was initially operated on, thanks to some charitable funds at Texas Children's hospital, but was subsequently passed up for several corrective surgeries, due to a lack of funds.

The so called "charitable" options, are few and far between. There are limited numbers of available slots, limited funds, and hundreds of miles of red tape.

My sister died a few years ago.


In any case, I have seen, with my own eyes, people denied life saving operations because of a lack of insurance/money. I have heard, with my own ears, doctors talk about "all we can do is stabilize them" because of a lack of finances.

So please do not speak to me about your silly statistics.

 

[Havensdad]

, just as the Church is responsible for the spiritual well being. In this day and age, this applies not just to law enforcement, but also medical care.

Gee. A liberal taking Bible verses out of context. Why, I'm shocked!

Please read the whole passage. Romans 13:4 says nothing about taking care of people's physical needs.

First, wanting everyone to have access to life giving medical care, is not "liberal." Since the official (socially) conservative position, affirms the sanctity of life, I would state that you are more liberal than I am.


Second, Romans 13 speaks of us paying taxes, in order that the Government might "serve" us, for our good. It is NOT just speaking about military defense, but service. He is not only an "avenger", he is also "God's servant for your good."

All of us, in my opinion, have been brainwashed by the two parties in our country (Dems and Rep), so that, rather than following what is right and good, when our parties say "jump" we say "how high."

 

[abcgrad94]

In any case, I have seen, with my own eyes, people denied life saving operations because of a lack of insurance/money. I have heard, with my own ears, doctors talk about "all we can do is stabilize them" because of a lack of finances.

I'm sorry about your sister. Unfortunately, the system we have in place is not perfect, but neither is the government run healthcare option.

While there are folks who cannot financially afford certain surgeries, I object to the government taking away my hard earned money to pay for it against my will. I'm sorry if that sounds unkind, but it's not our government's place to act like Robin Hood. At least with our current system, we have the option to shop for insurance and choose the plan that best fits our needs.

Also, as was stated before in this thread, government healthcare equals government control in our personal lives. Since when did complete healthcare become an unalienable right in this country, that the government should force it, or should I say, enforce it?

 

[Aaron]

All of you guys who are talking about medical help being available to "anyone" are quite frankly, full of it.

Like I said, you don't know jack.

My sister was born with a birth defect in her heart. She was initially operated on, thanks to some charitable funds at Texas Children's hospital, but was subsequently passed up for several corrective surgeries, due to a lack of funds.

This will not change with socialized health care. Eventually the people you plunder to finance your own needs run out of money.

The so called "charitable" options, are few and far between.

Why do you think that's true?

There are limited numbers of available slots, limited funds, and hundreds of miles of red tape.

And gov'ment's gonna git rid o' that red tape, too!

My sister died a few years ago.


In any case, I have seen, with my own eyes, people denied life saving operations because of a lack of insurance/money. I have heard, with my own ears, doctors talk about "all we can do is stabilize them" because of a lack of finances.

So please do not speak to me about your silly statistics.

So, you're mad at God for giving her a defective heart, and you want to take it out on me. The long and the short of it is, I'm not responsible for your late sister's condition, nor for one penny of the cost of her care, and to take it from me without my permission is to steal from me and deprive my children of the things I'm responsible to provide for them.

I am not moved by your sob story. In fact, I'm incensed by it because you're exploiting it in the absence of a true theology, reason and a knowledge of facts to justify your position.

Have you considered that maybe instead of stealing you should have been praying?

 

[Havensdad]

I'm sorry about your sister. Unfortunately, the system we have in place is not perfect, but neither is the government run healthcare option.

While there are folks who cannot financially afford certain surgeries, I object to the government taking away my hard earned money to pay for it against my will.

Why is it o.k. to take your hard earned money, to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers over seas to protect the U.S., but not o.k. to use it to save peoples lives in other ways?

I'm sorry if that sounds unkind, but it's not our government's place to act like Robin Hood.

It does sound unkind. I believe it is the wrong attitude for a christian. Does it not bother you that so many people are dying, because they are poor?

At least with our current system, we have the option to shop for insurance and choose the plan that best fits our needs.

Only the well to do. The only option the lower paid people have, is to suffer and die.

That is not right.

Also, as was stated before in this thread, government healthcare equals government control in our personal lives.

Not at all. The health care should be if you want and need medical care, you can get it. If you would rather suffer and die, you are welcome to.

Since when did complete healthcare become an unalienable right in this country, that the government should force it, or should I say, enforce it?

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is guaranteed by the constitution, and is the basis for our government. Why is it o.k. for the government to spend millions of dollars so kids know Shakespeare, but not for them to save peoples lives?

My two cents, is that Infrastructure (highways and such) law enforcement (domestic and military) and life saving (medical care and emergency
food, etc.) are the only three places where the government actually has a legitimate interest. They have no place in banking, financial matters (like the auto bail out), schools, or anything else.

 

[Hardsheller]

Havensdad,

So your wife and children don't have any healthcare insurance?

Why did you make that choice?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

So, you're mad at God for giving her a defective heart, and you want to take it out on me. The long and the short of it is, I'm not responsible for your late sister's condition, nor for one penny of the cost of her care, and to take it from me without my permission is to steal from me and deprive my children of the things I'm responsible to provide for them.

I am not moved by your sob story.

Aaron, what the purgatory is your problem? Are you capable of empathy?

Havensdad, I feel sorry for you. It must hurt to have Aaron attack you and your family like that. :1_grouphug:

 

[Revmitchell]

I know a lot of my conservative friends (I myself am socially conservative, but fiscally moderate) might disagree with me; I DO believe in small government, to some extent. But I believe that the government SHOULD be in control of health care.

Why? Well the first reason is theological. I believe that Roman 13:4 teaches a basic theological truth: the earthly powers which God has established, are responsible for the physical well being of it's people, just as the Church is responsible for the spiritual well being. In this day and age, this applies not just to law enforcement, but also medical care.

Saving people's lives is the one area in which capitalism should not apply: at least in the application of it to individuals. "Big Business" health care, such as we have now, does not support free enterprise: it is for all intents and purposes the implementation of a caste system, where the rich who can pay for the proper medical care can live, and those who cannot die. This, frankly, is disgusting.

Imagine for a moment if we took this idea to the front steps of a hospital. On the right, a little girl, whose parents are poor, that needs a liver to survive. On the left, Bill Gates, who needs that same liver. In some instances, even if the little girl were at the top of the donor list, she would be skipped over, due to an inability to pay.

This is sickening. Who recieves medical care, should not be based on ones social status. While I agree that most forms of income redistribution are wrong (welfare), medical care is something different. We are not speaking of making sure everyone has a car and a T.V. here; we are talking about the right to life! The very thing that we Christians fight so hard for!

Republicans keep talking about just "making health care affordable to everyone." Speaking for myself, I have three children, a wife, I am going to school full time, and working my patooty off too. In order for health care to be "affordable" to me, it would have to be free.

If our idiotic conservative friends in the House and Senate, would quit opposing the health care bill, and instead put all of their efforts into putting in protections for the unborn, we would all be better off.

BTW: I even have a solution to the expense: dissolve the IRS, go with a straight tax, and re train all of the IRS employees for jobs in health care. Funding and people all in one shot!

It is not constitutional for the Fed to be involved in any sort of business not specifically mentioned in the constitution.