Health Care for America Now

[windcatcher]

Consider the following hypothetical interview between a reporter and some Christian who does not believe that universal health care is something worth advocating for.

Reporter: Should the church be advocating for universal health care (UHC)?

Christian: No it should not.

Reporter: Doesn't Jesus give rather strong statements about caring for "the least of these"? Wouldn't UHC be one way to do this?

Christian: Those teachings are not about how we should structure and order our society, they are instructions about how the church is to behave. Jesus is not telling us that we should enshrine this principle in the way we run our governments.

Reporter: I thought that Jesus said "all authority has been given to him on earth". Doesn't that include the institutions of government? And I thought the Messiah was a king. The word "Christ" means "king". And I throught there was a prophecy that "the government will be on his shoulders". Doesn't this all mean that you should be enshrining the care of the "least of these" in institutions of government?

Christian: Not really. It is important to separate church and state. And Jesus won't really be governing till His second coming. So in the meantime, we have to let the institutions of society run according to different principles?

Reporter: Whose principles?

Christian: I am not sure, secular ones I guess. But we need to have good Christians in government.

Reporter: But these Christians will be acting publically according to the secular principles of government, while ordering their "private" lives according to a different set of values?

Christian: I guess so - we need to have separation of church and state.

Reporter: So I guess your "king" only wants to exercise authority over your personal internal affairs but let Caesar, in his many incarnations, remain on the throne of how society is ordered and run?

Christian: Um....err....I guess so.

Reporter: He doesn't sound like much of a King after all. So even though Jesus repeatedly announced that the Kingdom of God had arrived, you think it is a kingdom limited to the private lives of believers and that authority over how we order our society is to be subject to the principles of another kingdom, one based on the secular values of, say, free market capitalism?

Christian: Well, now that you put it that way.....

Andre, it seems you believe in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe there is a devil?

The kingdoms of this earth are in bondage to the devil..... whose time for removal has not yet come. Til then the rulership of Christ and the impact of his kingdom and that of our warfare is spiritual. Jesus never told any ONE person to neglect giving to or helping the poor........ but he did rebuke one who was critical over an act of worship, who complained that the perfume should have been sold and given to the poor, that the poor are with us always. Jesus also said to render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasars and unto God the things which are God's. The charity of the body of Christ should not be passed through Ceasar's hands which separate it from the glory and thanksgiving which belong to God.

Or, do you believe in a different God and a different Jesus? Jesus said that many will come in his name, proclaiming they are doing his work when they are not....or will proclaim that they are the savior..... or the provider and the solution for the ills of mankind when they are not.

As an individual, you might advocate for a program which you think will help others in need: But Jesus never gave anyone the authority to take what another person has to meet the need you see. He made you responsible for the need you see.....not for taking from others to fill it! He also makes us responsible for our choices and the consequences of our choices....in providing for ourselves and our charity towards others.

And for those who would judge the poor, I say, the poverty measured by economics is as much a part of the curse upon this world and this earth as the weeds which have over taken my garden this year, or the briars which rise up, but there is no shame for those who are trying without the success which you might measure. There are some which see their worth or their ambition bound up in what they earn. Then there are some who are content with the wages which they have where God placed them to work and who find it is sufficient to just be sufficient and not require an excess, but who will perform their work diligently as God has ordained. God prospers some more and some less..... and God is just in whatever he has chosen to give and that which he expects should return. The ground is not stable in a fallen world in which we compete with those who have different measures, ethics, standards and whose god is not the God of the Bible.

The poverty which we Christians can concern ourselves intimately with is that of our spirit: We need the daily filling of His presence. Beyond that, we ought to give generously of the bounty with which he has blessed us so that others might be helped, and it should be to the glory of God.

 

[windcatcher]

So is letting people die because they don't have any health insurance. I personally would not be thrilled if the government provided health care for all but who else can do it? I'd much prefer that the churches get together and support the needy but that's never going to happen. The U.S. is number 43 in the world in health care (World Health Organization data) and barely ahead of Cuba. That's a pitiful record for a country as wealthy and strong as we are.

Well, not all reports are factual...... especially those with an agenda behing it..... and not all news is honest.... but the more it is repeated, the more familiar people become to accepting the lie.

Some of the most expensive and most advanced medical care in the world is used by people right here in the United States.

It is a socialistic lie that 'people are dying because they don't have health insurance'. No hospital is allowed to turn away a person presenting a life threatening emergency without at least stabilizing that person and securing treatment for him. If the deaths of those who receive bad care, the wrong medicine, or the wrong treatment by insured health care was compared to those who 'die because they have not insurance' ........ I would be willing to wager that more people die because of health care..... not because of the absence of it.:BangHead:

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are the person who apparently will not take Paul at his word and cannot place his statements in the proper scriptural context.

You have me confused with someone else. I am the one here who has been insisting that we actually look at the Bible for this issue. You are the one refusing.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

Again, I am taking Paul at his word here. The reader who has been following this whole discussion will know that I have produced Old Testament texts that talk about the announcement - the good news - of a returning King.

No one disputes that, but it is off topic.

You need to let Paul us what he means by the term "gospel", and not impose your own systems on him. You have produced zero texts to substantiate your claim about what the gospel is.

That's an out and out lie. I have several times produced 1 Cor 15:1-4, the only passage in teh NT that I am aware of where Paul actually defines the gospel. So far, you have refused to deal with it. I understand why you refuse. If you actually dealt with it, you would have to change your position, and so of course it is easier to ignore it than to deal with it, particularly given the corner you have backed yourself into.

But let's consider some more stuff.

1. No where in Scripture does Christ advocate any kind of health care, much less universal health care.
2. Christ was not always concerned about people's physical condition. He routinely left people in states of sickness and even death.

I have produced the Romans 1 text which, like it or not, summarizes the gospel as the assertion that Jesus is Lord.

The Roman 1 text you have talked about does not such thing. Perhaps you are confused about what you quoted.

You simply seem to let the Old Testament scriptures that Paul is clearly referring to "bounce off" you as if they do not support my point. But they clearly do, and I guess I need to repeat.

No need to repeat. Repeating an irrelevancy won't make it more relevant. You are connecting passages that have nothing to do with healthcare. Furthermore, you are refusing to note the biblical teaching about what the gospel is in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

You suggest that I lack the facility to make sense of this issue.

I don't know if you lack the facility. I think it is clear that you are not using it, if you ahve it. You are simply making no sense to anyone who knows the Scriptures.

Well I am the one arguing from the Scriptures, you are simply making claims.

Really? Is that what I was doing when I addressed your fallacy form Romans 1 by showing what the text says? Was that what I was doing when I showed 1 Cor 15:1-4 to be in direct contradiction to your claim?

Consider the following hypothetical interview between a reporter and some Christian who does not believe that universal health care is something worth advocating for.

Here's a better idea, though apparently somehwat novel to you: Let's consider the Scriptures. They are not hypothetical in the least. They declare God's will. And they are absent of connecting universal health to the gospel.

 

[dragonfly]

No hospital is allowed to turn away a person presenting a life threatening emergency without at least stabilizing that person and securing treatment for him.

This just isn't always true. I, myself, have been to the emergency room when I did not have any insurance. My condition was stabilized, correct. But then I was given an appointment with a doctor the next week. When I called the doctor I was told the office visit was a certain amount and treatment was not covered. So, just because an emergency room stabilizes a patient, it doesn't mean they get free health care.

 

[bobbyd]

I think anyone who thinks that government should be in charge of our healthcare system should spend the day at their local DMV.

 

[windcatcher]

You suggest that I lack the facility to make sense of this issue. Well I am the one arguing from the Scriptures, you are simply making claims. And even high school student will see that Paul's "gospel" - clearly stated to be drawing on the prophets - echoes these very texts from Isaiah which assert that the "good news" is about Kingship, not about "being saved by faith".

The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection from the dead constitutes him as lord (of all).

This is scary!

I hope a high school student reads the Bible and particularly the NT and has better understanding.

Besides, aren't we suppose to interpret Scripture with Scripture.... and within the context: And when it appears there's a disagreement between passages.... we exercise caution and patience against concluding a matter until it becomes clear to us. Not all questions require an answer.

 

[windcatcher]

This just isn't always true. I, myself, have been to the emergency room when I did not have any insurance. My condition was stabilized, correct. But then I was given an appointment with a doctor the next week. When I called the doctor I was told the office visit was a certain amount and treatment was not covered. So, just because an emergency room stabilizes a patient, it doesn't mean they get free health care.

Sorry that you had to pay for your emergency room visit. Whether or not you could pay..... they couldn't release you with a life threatening condition without stablizing you, which you admit they did.

I pay what I can for my health care too.... and do sympathize with you.

But, like I said..... I do believe medical errors contribute to more deaths than that cause among folks like you or me as the result of not getting free care.

There is no such thing as free health care: Someone pays for it! Somebody!

 

[Rise&shine]

View from the outside

As a young lad growing up outside of the USA, I would often admire the acheivements of the USA in many fields and endevours. Whilst my parents agreed with my perception of the USA, the were always careful to point out some of the drawbacks, the attitude to Healthcare for the poor or those with limited means was an example.

In essence they taught me how the USA was a great country, however, should you meet with misfortune, it was a hard place to be. Other countries might not be so Influential, have the best Doctors or Hospitals, but treated their own with limited means with better health care. Treating others how they would like be treated themselves.

Reading some of the posts, it comes across that the hardness still remains in the USA towards this issue. The phrase, "I'm all right Jack", comes to mind. Its almost like, if you are poor and cant afford health care, its your fault.

My question is, why is there a hardened attitude toward helping the less fortunate with Health Care ? What is the history behind this view ? From the people I have met from the USA, they have been kind, generous/hospitable.
So why the contrast on an issue such as this ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I am curious.

How many of those who read this thread have ever visited a free clinic?

How many have ever worked as a volunteer in a free clinic?

How many have ever used a free clinic?

 

[Revmitchell]

As a young lad growing up outside of the USA, I would often admire the acheivements of the USA in many fields and endevours. Whilst my parents agreed with my perception of the USA, the were always careful to point out some of the drawbacks, the attitude to Healthcare for the poor or those with limited means was an example.

In essence they taught me how the USA was a great country, however, should you meet with misfortune, it was a hard place to be. Other countries might not be so Influential, have the best Doctors or Hospitals, but treated their own with limited means with better health care. Treating others how they would like be treated themselves.

Reading some of the posts, it comes across that the hardness still remains in the USA towards this issue. The phrase, "I'm all right Jack", comes to mind. Its almost like, if you are poor and cant afford health care, its your fault.

My question is, why is there a hardened attitude toward helping the less fortunate with Health Care ? What is the history behind this view ? From the people I have met from the USA, they have been kind, generous/hospitable.
So why the contrast on an issue such as this ?

It is not the helping people that we take issue with. It is providing help via the government. This country was founded on limited government. All the government entitlement programs are unconstitutional. There are other ways to address the health care issue. Socialism is not the answer. It is a Pandora's box. In the end it is not really about helping. Folks on both sides of the issue want to do that. It is about opposing political world views.

 

[Andre]

That's an out and out lie. I have several times produced 1 Cor 15:1-4, the only passage in teh NT that I am aware of where Paul actually defines the gospel. So far, you have refused to deal with it. I understand why you refuse.

First of all, shame on you "pastor" for suggesting l am lying.

You did indeed refer to this text. That's one mistake for me. I should perhaps expect such treatment - I frequently get called a "liar" in response to my scriptural arguments. Is this because the accuser miraculously see into my mind and determines that I am lying? Or is it because their point cannot be sustained scripturally and they hope their point will win out by attacking my character. Let the reader familiar with my posts decide.

Let's see what this text says:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

This text is entirely consistent with what I have been saying all along. Salvation by faith is the result of the gospel, not its fundamental content. The good news is primarily that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah - the man after God's own heart - and that in raising Him from the dead, God has constituted Him as Lord of all creation. Paul is not ignorant of the Old Testament texts here which prophecy the good news of the returning King.

When people shrink the "gospel" down to the bare message that "Jesus died so that you can have eternal life", they rob Him of his true and proper status of King. And, of course, they deny the clear statements that this kingdom has already arrived:

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power

When does this happen? At the resurrection of course. The kingdom is here now!. Let's contrast that with the patronizing words of one who apparently disagrees with Jesus:

Think before you speak. That may help you to make sense. Jesus is teaching his disciples to pray for his reign to come on earth. That is the same thing we should be doing. But it will come when he returns

For Paul, the gospel is that Jesus is Lord. You are free to make up your own definition if you wish.

 

[Andre]

This is scary!

I hope a high school student reads the Bible and particularly the NT and has better understanding.

Besides, aren't we suppose to interpret Scripture with Scripture.... and within the context: And when it appears there's a disagreement between passages.... we exercise caution and patience against concluding a matter until it becomes clear to us. Not all questions require an answer.

This makes no sense. You seem to be supporting my argument when you say we need to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

I have provided scriptures from the Old Testament that clearly state that the "good news" that the people are awaiting is a returning King who will bring justice to the people. We then have Paul referring to the "gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son,..."

I am doing precisely the proper thing - not picking a definition out of the "gospel" out of air but rather grounding in it the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Andre]

At the end of the day, the argument about what the term "gospel" means might be a bit of a tangent. We all agree that it is good news that faith in Jesus procures our salvation. What we do not agree on is whether Jesus is King right now. The scriptures I have provided show that the Kingdom has arrived - it is in force right now. I can provide more texts if need be. Or if you guys are right, we need to rework Matthew 28 thusly

Some authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth

If Jesus is indeed King right now, and if He spent so much time explaining the nature of his Kingdom, and if care for the least of these is a kingdom of God value, why so much resistance to actually implement Jesus' kingship in the institutions of the land?

I'll tell you why.

Money.

 

[carpro]

I am curious.

How many of those who read this thread have ever visited a free clinic?

How many have ever used a free clinic?

I have .

Many times.

The local hospital emergency room.

 

[Dragoon68]

You are probably right, but since individuals, the churches and charitable organizations are not doing the job, well, that leaves the government.

Could it be that people have concluded that since the government is already taking so much of their earned income and giving it away both here and abroad that they feel no responsibility to do even more on their own? Even so, charitable giving in the USA is still very high not only in money but in time and effort.

 

[Dragoon68]

First, I am not sure if you have evidence to support this assertion. Second, the position you are advocating really amounts to saying that Jesus' authority is not over all after all, but rather does not include the institutions by which we order and structure our society. Because if you did consider His authority to embrace all, you would implement his Kingdom of God values - including care for the least of these - in all institutions of this world.

As it is, you seem to have a rather impotent King. You presumably call Him King - and rightly so - and yet you limit his Kingship. You shut his kingship out of governments, effectively saying, "we have a better secular way to run government, but we'll let Jesus be King inside the walls of the church or in our interior private lives".

Your comments don't fit. God is in control regardless what happens. We don't best serve Him by defaulting to having government deal with charity including socialized medicine. We thereby turn it over to political purposes. We can see what a mess all the other existing welfare programs have become and have no reason to believe that any other great ideas would work any better. Instead we would do much better to exclude the government from such matters and take on the responsibility at a level where we could more effectively manage it and be involved in it knowing more specifically how much of our earnings are used and for what purposes. Charity should never become an entitlement imposed by one man upon another. That's what welfare has become in America and everywhere else it's been implemented.

 

[Revmitchell]

Could it be that people have concluded that since the government is already taking so much of their earned income and giving it away both here and abroad that they feel no responsibility to do even more on their own? Even so, charitable giving in the USA is still very high not only in money but in time and effort.

It is a claim the liberal left make all the time. It is fallacious and only serves as a political tool to gain power.

 

[Dragoon68]

It is a claim the liberal left make all the time. It is fallacious and only serves as a political tool to gain power.

That's exactly what the politicians want - more power - and the way to get is by buying the votes of those who think they're going to get a really good deal and funding it at the expense of them and others who already know better from past experience. It's an endless scam that we just can't seem to shake! Instead we keep asking for more and more government programs!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

It is a claim the liberal left make all the time. It is fallacious and only serves as a political tool to gain power.

You're right: let's just leave things the way they are.......

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Who made it the way it is ?