The second page didn't show up and therefore I omitted it in my response to TCassidy. However he apparently gets a kick out of keeping an "I'm right" score. lol
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The fastest way to solve the health care crisis
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
The second page didn't show up and therefore I omitted it in my response to TCassidy. However he apparently gets a kick out of keeping an "I'm right" score. lol
And? Your point?
Sure. I'd like to see how y'all exalt the Lord.
First off, we don't imply that one of the administrators is an infidel.
I too think we, the richest country in the world, can afford to provide health care for those, through no fault of their own, cannot afford healthcare.
I have said before, let those who can and want to, buy health insurance.
Those who don't want to or can't can participate in a single payer plan with fees that are means tested.
I am not the one promoting titles, descriptions, (ie military, poor and family) is an eternal reason for the government to take (compel) the public at large to forever support whom THEY decided is "entitled" to an other mans wealth.
I am not the one who who badgered another for making a comment because of a missing form.
I am not the one who thinks "titles" (military, administrator, wealthy country) gives people a pass.
Everyone has hardships and issues. And anyone who believes their government is their daddy to resolve all of their hardships and issues, can promote that all they please. However it is not Biblical, and it always requires the compulsion of someones else's $$.
I am NOT against charity.
I am NOT against helping and aiding others.
I AM against compulsion to provide for others as others determine I should be required.
I also do not find Scripture offensive. When someone promotes others should be compelled to give to them; they are not providing for themselves.
2Cor.9
- [7] Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying a veteran needs to cover his own butt when it comes to health care and the service he provided for our country means nothing? And it is pretty strong language to insinuate that one of our moderators is an infidel.
If you trace back in American history and intent, the militia, men who had a gun would respond to a call for arms, when necessary. And what was the necessity? Others invading. Then came the organization of the Continental Army, having trained military, who could lead the militia, when a call to arms was necessary. Several times was a call to arms and men who could responded, and later people WHO elected to support a war, bought war bonds. You know the history. You know what an invasion and necessity is. You know of the times of compelled participation in war. And you should know a "free" country as America is promoted is not free, when everyone is promoted to and encouraged to BE a dependent, and the government their "daddy" supplying their every need and "want".
And now? We leave "invasion" wide open "as acceptable", and buzz around the world at our (people at large) expense poking into everyone else's business telling them what "they" should do, and handing the "qualified" public at large, the Bill.
The military "care" (health, limb, injury) was provided by the military, during service. Death of a married serviceman, extended "care" to the widows (till they remarried) and minor children.
Now, military or ANY government Serviceman, military, civil, appointed, elected, forever are provided for. Why? Seriously, Jimmy Carter requires the government to upkeep his home, his transportation, his office, blah, blah?
Liberalism (everyone should be entitled to government handouts) is on one hand tongue lashed, UNTIL, it comes to an individuals PET entitlement, THEN, it's acceptable.
Scripture says to take care of your own. Trust God. And do for others as it is in your heart to gladly give and do. I do not gladly give to the government to dole out endlessly to whom they pick and choose.
Liberty is for me to decide whom to dole out what I have.
IF, I had said that, you could quote me, but you didn't, because I didn't say that!
Is quoting Scripture offensive to you? Is it your opinion Scripture doesn't mean what it says?
Do you have a valid source for your info?
Ok, Happy, I have done some of your homework
Apparently the upkeep cost is about 70 grand a year - but is based on a type of a "reverse mortgage"
Costs of former Presidents
Medical care for Congress
Apparently the upkeep cost is about 70 grand a year - but is based on a type of a "reverse mortgage"
Costs of former Presidents
Medical care for Congress
Problem is: we are not sure what you are trying to say.
You can do the research into anyone who served in any government position, of when and what they receive AFTER their service.
It is not MY homework. There are numerous government service positions, and numerous qualifiers for who receives what and when. Reverse mortgage has what to do with Carter's home upkeep? More so, naming something a National Treasure / ie Historic Relevance (effective AFTER his death), is one way for his home to be cared for presently.
YOU made a statement - and it is up to you to provide the valid source.
If I state that the moon is made of green cheese - that it is up to me to provide the evidence
So until you provide the solid evidence - anything you say is a theory and not necessarily true.
Nothing new that has not been repeated throughout history of mankind.
God provides what is good ~ some men mimic and try to do what is for good ~ and some fall off the deep end and take what was intended for good and twist it into a rats nest.
A nation that is free is supposed to be INDEPENDENT ~
....our Nation is not INDEPENDENT, it volunteered itself to be subject to the UNITED NATIONS.
A nation that is free is supposed to have INDEPENDENT citizens ~
....our Nation encourages DEPENDENCY of it's citizens.
WHY? Because IF the majority of its citizenry are dependents (of the government), the government becomes their Master.
The LORD Himself warned people, The Founders warned people, The government today promotes Democracy....ie control by the majority, the holder of wealth....
A Republic (ie control by the people) is what was created and attempted to be buried.....
Individuals have their own desires to care for themselves; However numerous people have their own desires of what "they" want, at others expense, and attempt every tactic to get it; be it lobbyists, reps catering to an individual or "special" group, bad-mouthing someone who disagrees, backroom deals for legislative favors, blah, blah.
Cassidy has a person passion for the military. He served. Great, I know many who did, and then returned to civilian life, exercising their God given right, recognized by the Founders to BE a free people, to provide for themselves and their families. There are plenty of organizations comrades and vets have organized for their own personal interest. Good for them. Being a Vet, having served is not diminished but is recognized by the public at large. However does being a Vet, or having served in any government capacity, (and or their family members), mean a lifelong dependent at the public's expense? Why?
1 Sam 8
[10] And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
[11] And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
[12] And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
[13] And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
[14] And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
[15] And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
[16] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
[17] He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[18] And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
[19] Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
No, we do not have a king. We have Servants who glue themselves to honored seats of the Office they are "supposed" to temporarily represent, and call themselves Leaders and act like Dictators, dictating who, when and how they shall TAKE from one to GIVE to whom "they" determine it benefits, without of course by passing their own pockets.
"I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, 1787. ME 6:156
I am pro Liberty, and not ashamed to speak as an advocate for people to care for themselves.
I do not require the government to decide to WHOM or WHEN or WHAT I gladly give to aid or help others.
Because they have become disabled thanks to the service they provided the country?
I gave an article source. However I am not going to go through every govt dole out and law and news article, govt reports and examples to satisfy you.