Not just me - but everyone on this board.
and by the way, I can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.
-
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
Not just me - but everyone on this board.
and by the way, I can prove that the moon is made of green cheese.
Obviously not as you keep posting and posting and posting.
Then why don't you?
I don't speak for you. I ask you questions trying to get a straight answer from you.
Here is the quote:
You really ought to pay closer attention.
If you made a statement that sparked my interest, I would go research it and verify it according to sources I trust.
Good luck with that.
You are certainly clearly communicating more than what you write.
Hmm, you remind me of a Baptist Board member out in Denver, CO
No doubt, people are curious creatures. However, is it JUST to blame the planner, or is it the one who agrees to do the killing, the one who kills?
I've traveled, and been introduced to people all over the US, however I don't recall knowing anyone specific from Denver.
Do you recall ever reading any school books? They are designed to spark your interest, ie introduce you to a topic, which you can read its introductory tid-bits and be content or delve further.
Scripture teaches to hear, then go verify what you hear by a source you trust.
Acts 17
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Perhaps your Denver friend was also of the same mindset.
As Jesus taught ~ the words are what reveal the knowledge, however it is "which" understanding that is paramount. Jesus spoke many words, in one speech, to mixed crowds. Some "understood" with "their" carnal mind, some "understood" with their "spiritual" hearts.
Matt 13
- [10] And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
- [13] Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
[11] And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
who said he is my friend??
Just a common reference, no offense intended.
We already have socialized health care in the form of allowing employers to deduct from taxes the cost of providing health insurance but not taxing that coverage benefit as income to the employee (and more recently allowing payment of premiums by employees pre-tax).
So even before you talk about the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, we are spending billions through the tax avoidance scheme.
There are only two fixes.
1. Medicare for all. Everyone gets tax paid hospital coverage and if you want more than that (doctor bills, tests, medicines, hearing aides, glasses) you pay for it via premiums. If you have private coverage you can opt out of Part B, C, or D without penalty. If you don't then you have to pay a penalty to get covered later.
2. The Singapore system. Everyone is required to put money in a health savings account that they control themselves. Everyone has catastrophic coverage paid via taxes. Everyone deposits a percentage of salary to a health savings account via mandatory payroll deduction. Government via taxes will add to your account if you are low income.
When you have a cold and go to the Doctor, the clinic hands you a bill for the services, you whip out your debit card and pay the bill.
Since people see what they are actually paying, it creates a free market system and some clinics specialize in cheaply provided basic care.
So even before you talk about the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, we are spending billions through the tax avoidance scheme.
There are only two fixes.
1. Medicare for all. Everyone gets tax paid hospital coverage and if you want more than that (doctor bills, tests, medicines, hearing aides, glasses) you pay for it via premiums. If you have private coverage you can opt out of Part B, C, or D without penalty. If you don't then you have to pay a penalty to get covered later.
2. The Singapore system. Everyone is required to put money in a health savings account that they control themselves. Everyone has catastrophic coverage paid via taxes. Everyone deposits a percentage of salary to a health savings account via mandatory payroll deduction. Government via taxes will add to your account if you are low income.
When you have a cold and go to the Doctor, the clinic hands you a bill for the services, you whip out your debit card and pay the bill.
Since people see what they are actually paying, it creates a free market system and some clinics specialize in cheaply provided basic care.
America's founding is liberalism.
Someone other than God's anointed king ruling the people?
Rights are inherent rather than doled about by the crown as it deems fit?
The people choosing their own leaders?
Along the way we added more liberal ideas like allowing more white males to vote, ending slavery, giving citizenship to all born here, giving the vote to black males, giving the vote to females, giving the vote to 18 year olds.
Someone other than God's anointed king ruling the people?
Rights are inherent rather than doled about by the crown as it deems fit?
The people choosing their own leaders?
Along the way we added more liberal ideas like allowing more white males to vote, ending slavery, giving citizenship to all born here, giving the vote to black males, giving the vote to females, giving the vote to 18 year olds.
You think ending slavery was a liberal action? What about a humanitarian action?
Liberal or humanitarian?
It was both liberal and humanitarian. It was the Southern conservatives and fundamentalists as well as some in the North who fought hardest to retain slavery.
From: Yes, the Civil War Was About Slavery | Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words
While white Southern Baptist elites of 1845 agreed that human equality was wrongheaded and black slavery morally pure (most probably did not condone the enslavement of working class whites), they had not always believed thus. To be certain, the birthing of the pro-slavery Southern Baptist Convention in 1845 did not happen in a vacuum, nor was it necessarily inevitable.
Prior to the 1820s, many Baptists North and South were anti-slavery, reflective of larger views in the South at that time, a legacy of a pre-cotton economy. But by the mid-1840s Baptist sentiment in the South — at least as expressed in denominational leadership — largely perceived the enslavement of blacks as ordained of God.
The transformation of the thought of the prominent Baptist minister John Leland (who ministered first in Virginia and then in the Northeast) in regards to slavery illustrates the change that took place among white Baptists of the South. As Leland’s views transitioned from anti-slavery to pro-slavery, renowned Baptist preacher and denominational leader Richard Furman, while president of the South Carolina State Convention of Baptists in 1822, wrote on behalf of South Carolina Baptists to the governor of South Carolina about slavery. His letter, a response to the attempted slave insurrection led by free black Denmark Vesey months earlier, is considered a watershed event in the beginning of a movement toward consolidation of white Baptists in the South to the pro-slavery position.
… because certain writers on politics, morals and religion, and some of them highly respectable, have advanced positions, and inculcated sentiments, very unfriendly to the principle and practice of holding slaves;.…These sentiments, the Convention, on whose behalf I address your Excellency, cannot think just, or well founded; for the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. (read the entire document)
Richard Furman, the South Carolina Baptist pastor and denominational leader who in 1822 steered white Baptists toward pro-slavery ideology.
The die had been cast: Baptists in America, united in 1814 in the formation of the General Missionary Convention, were on the road to formal division over the issue of slavery. By the early 1840s American (Northern) Baptists hostility to slavery reached critical levels. Many white Baptists of the South, now insiders rather than outsiders in Southern culture and society, became ever more defensive of their region’s “peculiar institution.”
Largely comprised of slaveholders, the gathering at the First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, in May 1845 publicly endorsed the peculiar institution. Slavery was biblical, abolition sinful. Baptists of the North were wrong to oppose slavery. Abolitionists bore responsibility for the Baptist division. Baptists of the South had been patient with the agitators, but enough was enough. Wealth generated by God-ordained black slavery would advance the cause of missions worldwide. Pledging allegiance to slavery, they vowed “we will never interfere with what is Caesar’s” (a biblical allusion implying it was their moral and legal responsibility to uphold the legal institution of slavery). And for good measure, delegates expressed outrage that a northern Baptist missionary had “actually remitted money to the United States to aid in the assisting of slaves to ‘run away from their masters.'” (Proceedings of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845.)
THE SANCTIFICATION OF WHITE SUPREMACY
From this point forward, white Baptist leaders in the South through the end of the Civil War openly and insistently championed and defended white supremacy and black slavery. In so doing they embraced a racially-based form of Christian nationalism heretofore foreign to the very Christian denomination that had been the most vocal advocate, since the seventeenth century, of the separation of church and state.
In Alabama, one Baptist news editor in 1850 said of slavery, “As a question of morals, it is between us and God … as a question of political economy, it is with us alone, as free and independent states.” The same year, Alabama’s Bethel Baptist Association, reflecting Calvinistic theology, insisted the master-slave relationship was the product of God’s providence. In 1856 an Alabama Baptist labeled slavery “as much an institution of Heaven as marriage.” And in 1860 another declared, “The best defense of slavery … is slavery as it is.” (See Wayne Flynt, Alabama Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, p. 108)
White Baptists merely echoed the opinions of other Southern elites. Alabama Presbyterian minister Rev. Fred A. Ross wrote a book defending slavery in 1857. Entitled Slavery Ordained of God, Ross declared: “Slavery is of God, and [should] continue for the good of the slave, the good of the master, the good of the whole American family.”
Alexander H. Stephens, U.S. Senator from Georgia prior to the war, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America
With the ascendant Republican Party in 1860 united in resisting the expansion (and hence future) of slavery, the preservation and expansion of slavery lay with the Democratic Party. Yet Democrats in their 1860 convention in Charleston split over the issue, with the Deep South’s delegates (all slave lords or allies of slaveholders) determined to trump the Unionist commitments of other Democratic delegates. In triumph South Carolinian slave lord John S. Preston, leading his fellow slave lords out of the convention hall and ultimately toward secession, summed up the Deep South elites’ unwavering commitment to slavery by declaring: “Slavery is our king; Slavery is our truth; Slavery is our Divine Right.”
Meanwhile, Virginia slaveholder and aristocrat George Fitzhugh spilled a great deal of ink defending black slavery and condemning human equality and free societies. Fitzhugh declared that he was “quite as intent on abolishing Free Society” as Northerners were on “abolishing slavery.” When war broke out, Fitzhugh framed the conflict as a war “between Christians and infidels.”
Yet before the war began, some Southern non-slaveholders, including Baptists, resisted the growing secessionist movement. Slavery few disputed, but disunion troubled many.
Nonsense. America's founding is Liberty to take care of yourself, via the blessings of God. America's founding was not "appointing" a RULER, but rather a SERVANT, to tend to a FEW things that affected individual colonies that applied for and received Statehood.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The "US LAWS" "use" to be based on Gods principles and standards, to which, you can research EARLY Laws, and see their comparison TO Scriptural principles and standards.
The blessings of Liberty, are NOT blessings of a Government TO the People, but rather blessing OF the People, BY GOD.
Official MOTTO of the US. "IN GOD WE TRUST".
Did I say that? I'm saying that as Christians we should try to help the needy. Vets should be given health care in honor of their service. The needy should be provided with heath care because we are following Jesus' example (actually stronger than that) to do so.
"In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States. It was adopted as the nation's motto in 1956 as an alternative or replacement to the unofficial motto of E pluribus unum, which was adopted when the Great Seal of the United States was created and adopted in 1782.[1][2]
"In God We Trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864[3] and has appeared on paper currency since 1957. A law passed in a Joint Resolution by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by President Dwight Eisenhower on July 30, 1956 declared IN GOD WE TRUST must appear on American currency. This phrase was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the phrase entered circulation on October 1, 1957.[3]
Can you give an example of Jesus DEMANDING men give him money, so He can dole it out to whom He qualifies as "needy" ?
And do you, dig in your pockets and with what is "yours" directly provide "healthcare" for the "needy" ?