Catholic Reaganites for Obama?

The pro-life movement has put all their eggs in the RvW basket (as a result we had Bush). Doesn't anyone remember South Dakota in 2006? Voters still want abortion to be legal. That isn't going to change as long as pro-lifers have their Supreme Court blinkers on.

As this thread demonstrates, more and more pro-lifers are refusing to be duped by the Republican Party, and more and more are refusing to bow to the simple-minded mantra "I'll only vote for politicians who claim to be pro-life."

We won't stop abortion from the top down.

Oh, Jesus would be totally OK with children of low-income families dying from diseases which would be preventable if the wealthy society around them took an interest. Surely. Find THAT in the gospels. Maybe when he comes again these problems will be solved.

Oh, so no wealthy people give to help children? You insult a lot of people you don't know, who give many times your annual income to "help".

Until that day, do the poor have to wait for essential medical care until we-all convert? Or can we sort of "convert" en masse, and ensure a basic level of care for everyone, if from motives of self-interest if from no other?

Gee, I'm not poor, quite the opposite... and I don't have "insurance". Well, not at the moment. I haven't had "insurance" in a long time. As someone who is self employed, "insurance" is really expensive.

But I do go see the doctor now and then. And I leave some dollars lighter. I have no lack of health care. Nor does my family. Now, I have BEEN poor. I have been to the point of not being able to pay a $50 doctor bill. I had to parcel it to them $10 at a time. But had I had some serious issue, someone would have taken care of me. And I'd have had to make payments for years afterwards, to pay the bill.

Oh, wait. I already did that. Multiple times. I had medical bill payments for more than 10 years. Did I at times wish I didn't have that financial burden over me? Yes. But it WAS MY BURDEN, not anyone else's.

Don't be smug. You, I assume, Simon, have good medical insurance. Don't assume that it will always be so. Don't get the idea that the minute you develop an expensive medical problem your insurance carrier won't comb your records to find out a way to cancel your coverage. Don't be astonished when your family has to file in bankruptcy because they can't pay your (inflated) doctor and hospital bills.

I don't know anything about Simon, but I've been there too.

The problem is, your arguments are utterly worthless. There is no reason for any child "dying" from a lack of basic health care. Seriously. No doubt whatsoever, that there will be a doctor's clinic somewhere that will see a child for the cost of a pair of Nikes, or designer jeans. There's a ton of "poor" people who will spend more than the c ost of a doctor's visit EVERY month on coffee and cigarettes. Or on McDonald's for lunch. Or on Cable TV. Or a cell phone they don't REALLY need.

But, if you're going to argue (as you've done here) that because we're Christians, we're required to provide everyone thier basic needs, then why start with Health Care?

I often go years without seeing a doctor. My kids do too. Same about the Dentist. Even with my wife's severe allergies and some chronic health issues like Athsma, we don't spend over $300 a month for a family of 7. That's likely less than the cost Hillary wants to force you to pay for "insurance".

How long can you go without eating? If you can't afford health care, when the doctor's visits are less than it costs to fill the average gas tank twice, you definitely can't afford food. But you can go several days without eating, and still live.

But what about a home? You can't make it overnight up north in the winter. You'll die of exposure.

If you don't have $80 for a doctor's visit, you dont' have enough to eat for even a month. If you don't have enough to eat for a month, you REALLY can't afford a home to live in.

So, if it REQUIRES federal universal health care to be "compassionate", then I submit it requires far more than that. After all, there has only been effective medicine for less than a couple hundred years.

So, if your argument is valid, then we really have an obligation to federalize housing. Every one is gauranteed basic housing. Food. Everyone is gauranteed basic food, and we have to federalize food.

Why, if our health care system is so evil... are we allowing Safeway and ADM, and WalMart to exist? How can allow huge profits for contractors and real estate speculators, when people are dying from the consequences of homelessness?

Or, maybe the real problem, is that you aren't making a rational conclusion in the first place. Basic health care, a few medicines and a couple visits a year costs less than almost EVERYONE pays for satellite or cable TV.

Who doesn't have cable or satellite? I dare say a lot of people who insist they have no means of paying to see the doctor are spending far more to watch TV. And you enable them with your arguments.

You see, if a person is THAT destitute, they don't need federalized health care, they need a JOB. If someone is that destitute, they don't need to be forced to buy insurance for health care, they need a HOME.

Basic medical needs for most people is a pittance - a few hundred dollars a year or less. That's no national emergency. But nobody is willing to live with only "basic". They want EVERY medical wonder that exists given to them, when things get rough, and disease strikes.

Not even us, with our 6 figure income, can afford insurance that provides UNLIMITED care, and all the specialities that have been developed. If I or my wife developed cancer, we'd be bankrupted. And so would almost everyone, even those WITH insurance, if it were a protracted struggle. Most health insurance has limits.. often limited at hundreds of thousands. But there are medical procedures and treatments that cost tens, hundreds of thousands... into the millions.

The truth is, that far too many people are horrible financial managers. They are in debt, have no savings, and spend even thier last dollar, without saving money for "health care".

If that is just cause to turn all health care over to the government... And we know how horrendously incompetent, wasteful, corrupt, and politically favorited government is, then before we get there, we should also do away with "capitalism" providing homes, food, clothing, and transportation.

And take away all those "things" we don't need, like Ipods, Iphones, INTERNET SERVICES, gambling, fast food, Nikes, BlingBling, cocaine, booze, beer... That would do far more toward MAKING people "afford" health care.

But somehow I don't see anyone advocating that. Rather, I see people advocating further empowering a corrupt government wallowing in incomprehensible sums of our money and in debt as well, to be more wasteful and controlling than it is. And then equating that action with being "Christian".

It looks like corrupt politics to me, and nothign whatsoever to do with loving and caring for your neighbor, just a weak and vapid justification.