Let me get this straight, if a Republican gets elected then he will likely continue to spend billions on the war and if a Democrat gets elected he/she will spend billions in more government programs, meanwhile inevitably raising our taxes. Neither party seems to care about the budget deficit if you ask me.

How many times does it have to be said, Mr. Bush is not against SCHIP. He is seeking to add $5 billion to that program. The problem is the Democrats want to more than double the program when it is not needed. A high percentage of the families that qualify for SCHIP do not apply for it. It is not an issue of a lack of funding, it is an issue of notifying those that are eligible. But yet again we are relying on the government to solve our problems. Reliance on the government eventually equals socialism. We need less government control not more government control.

Posted by: Russell | October 19, 2007 4:42 PM

Yes - and if the Gov't does to health care what they have done to Social (un)Security - we are going to be in a world of hurt.

Like I stated before - why not make it to the advantage of the people to purchase their own health care rather than making another huge gov't dept that will end up feeding on itself, and in the long run - offer poorer care than we have today.

The United Kingdom now allows people to purchase private insurance because the gov't program is ineffective and decades behind the US in care.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 19, 2007 5:20 PM

Hi I and I!

I think the younger evangelical voters have learned to ask questions. Not sure about the older ones. Older ones often seem to operate on blind faith in leaders telling them what to think. Scary to watch - that kind of blind faith... I fear for them.

I'm not unconcerned about the problems of the American budget. There is indeed a point where you can't do EVERYTHING that needs to be done and should be done. We all face those kind of budget decisions. Or at least should, if we don't.

But the priorities have been so wrong the past several years.

I'm not going to enter the arguments in this thread about socialism. Socialism and libertarianism are BOTH worldly, human philosophies. Taken to their limits, they BOTH will fail . And both will fail for the same reason - because human beings sin and don't do things God's way. The 2 philosophies just fail at different points, that's all.

And so...that's why I'm not an ideologue. You have to pray for God's wisdom in solving problems on an individual case by case basis. And be free to pick solutions, depending on the need of the moment, from a wide array of philosophies.

Rather like making a pot of soup.

When you make homemade soup, it would be silly to be pro-carrot but anti-rutabaga, or pro-oregano but anti-thyme and anti-parsnip. It really all depends on what the soup needs - AFTER you've tasted a spoonful. That's what you do - FIRST you taste, and THEN you decide it needs more garlic, or more water, or more chicken broth. Any of those ingredients are good additions at the right time. Equally true, any of those ingredients can be overdone - to the ruination of the pot of soup.

And so...better to deal with individual situations on a prayerful case-by-case basis. The right balance....is what is needed.

My feel right now is we've neglected the poor the past several years. At the same time, we've also ignored our budget the past several years. Both need to be addressed. The answer is at the point on the graph paper where BOTH lines intersect. Not one - at the exclusion of the other.

Tax cuts for the wealthy SURELY are not what is needed at this point in time. And again, it's not that I'm always against tax cuts - but they're just not what is needed at this point in time.

Posted by: Amazon Creek | October 20, 2007 2:18 AM

To Richard Fannon:

Thank you for setting the record straight based on real, personal experience. Many of the the conservatives who post here, and most likely the one you addressed in your post, seem to get their points from talking conservative heads that clog our airwaves with lies and misinformation.

"Lets not forget that the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to get involved in social programs of any kind."

And the Bible calls for the stoning of people who commit adultery. Both ways of interpreting these documents have been eschewed a long time ago. If you are such a strict constructionist of the constitution that you can't even help poor kids get healthcare on some level, there is precious little we have in common.

Posted by: JamesMartin | October 20, 2007 7:07 AM

The bottom line argument is about whether the government will extend public coverage up to and including to families who already have their own private insurance, which is nothing more than another attempt to impose national health insurance. Every child below the poverty line ($20,650 for a family of four) is eligible for Medicaid. Congress enacted S-CHIP in 1997 to help cover kids whose families weren’t poor, but who still couldn’t afford their own private insurance. These are the families whose incomes basically fell within the range of up to 200 percent of the poverty line. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the rate of uninsured among these kids fell from 22.5 percent in 1996 to 16.9 percent in 2005. Most of these children, if uninsured, would be eligible for publicly funded health care anyway and S-CHIP would be work for them and THAT IS NOT WHAT BUSH VETOED. The problem that people (like Obery Hendricks) who rage against President Bush’s veto don’t acknowledge is that, as families earn more, they are more likely to have private insurance, and S-CHIP lures them from private insurance onto government insurance. This is called “crowding out.” If you want socialized medicine “crowding out” is simply another code for it. The federal government picks up two-thirds of the bill for state-administered S-CHIP programs. States therefore have an incentive to expand coverage to better-off families — for every $1 states spend on medical benefits, the feds pay $3. And thus expansion at the state level to children and families making 200 to 350 percent of the poverty level (New Jersey and New York for example). I support the veto. I don’t, can’t, won’t and will never support socialized medicine. I believe it was the Prime Minister in Canada who recently came to the U.S. to have a heart procedure done. So many who love the concept cite Canada as a great example of what the U.S. should aspire to. Wonder what the Prime Minister knew, that that socialized medicine lovers don’t? When Michael Moore has to have heart surgery or some other obesity-induced medical procedure done, wonder if he’ll chose Cuba, his shining example of health care, to have it done?

Posted by: HermanNewtic | October 20, 2007 11:55 AM

HermanNewtic is peddling propaganda and misinformation originating from the health insurance industry lobby - the most powerful lobby in Washington.
The 'for profit' health insurance industry has no place in a single payer universal health care system and they know it.
It costs them a lot of money to bury the truth about universal health care.
And we're all paying through the nose just to be lied to by the health insurance industry.

Do the hermeneutics on universal health care, Herman.

Posted by: justintime | October 20, 2007 12:25 PM

Someone who thinks is telling the truth about health care in the UK.

Health care in the US is not only the most expensive in the world, it's the worst.
The health insurance industry puts lipstick on the pig but Americans are beginning to understand that a pig is a pig.

Posted by: justintime | October 20, 2007 12:44 PM

Herman,

Do you think of the Commonwealth Fund as a source of propaganda for evil socialism?
I agree with the Commonwealth Fund vision to provide universal health care for all Americans.
They are thinking within a conventional framework - a combination of public and private insurance.

I think the most cost effective system of providing UNIVERSAL health care is a SINGLE PAYER system where the government provides direct access to health care resources available for ALL citizens.
The superiority of single payer systems has already been proven by functioning examples in many other nations. As 'Someone who thinks' pointed out, these universal, single payer systems outperform ours on cost, quality and comprehensive coverage.

So what's the problem with you folks anyway?
What don't you understand?

Posted by: justintime | October 20, 2007 3:51 PM

"Mr. Quillman appears ignorant of the fact that America is a democracy and as such, WE ARE the Federal government.
As citizens, WE decide what WE want our government to get involved in.
Since the majority of American citizens want universal health care, WE will eventually get universal health care.
So get over it, Mr. Quillman."

And justintime appears ignorant of the fact that the US is NOT a democracy, but a democratic republic. While we are the government, we elet people to represent us, thus avoiding the insanity of mob rule, and ensuring that we do not have our own "French revolution".

You also seem to be ignorant regarding the purpose of the Constitution. It limits the power of the federal government, but it also provides a process to change the Constitution.

THe unfortunate reality is, that your side has circumvented the legal problem that is faced by federally funded health care. If you were to change the Constitution, you would win the legal fight, for a period of time.

You still have the moral, historial and theological problems that no one seems really interested in addressing. Historically, governments that started giving out entitlements, fail in a short period of time. Morally, is it right to prey on the underprivledged by creating a dependany that is very difficult to break? Theologically, is it right to take away the blessing of work, just so that we an say we care?

If we do actually get universal health care, an I opt not to take it? I don't think I want the same crak team of government workers that handles Katrina so well, having anything to do with my families health care.

Paul

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 20, 2007 8:16 PM

James Martin "And the Bible calls for the stoning of people who commit adultery. Both ways of interpreting these documents have been eschewed a long time ago. If you are such a strict constructionist of the constitution that you can't even help poor kids get healthcare on some level, there is precious little we have in common."

Paul: Caring for the underpriviledged is the calling of the church, not the government. And I have said before, if you want to add to the Constitution, you can ammend it.

Scripture is not so ammendable. Are you saying that God's law is not good enough? Are you saying that somehow, we know better than God when it comes to the law, and morality? Not saying I agree with the stoning, but I am asking what makes you think that you know better than God?

Study Thomas Chalmers, Abraham Kuyper, CH Spurgeon, Dr. George Grant, and many others. They demonstrate, practically, how the church can fulfill its calling to care for the underprivledged.

Poverty is a first a spiritual issue, and the government is not in any way equiped to handle it. By that I mean that poverty is reflective of how God sees us. We are poor, naked, homeless, marginalized, destitute, all because of sin. The government is not capable of responding to those needs, only the church that believes the Gospel does.

This really boils down to an issue of faith. Where is yours, in the government, or in the ability of the Gospel to change the world?

Paul C. Quillman

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 20, 2007 8:42 PM

"The constitution does not give the federal government any authority to get involved in social programs of any kind."

Gee almost right up front the U.S. Constitution says; "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, 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."

I do believe finding away to provide health care to some of the least among us just fits there in "promote the general Welfare."

Then there is this conservative line;
"Reliance on the government eventually equals socialism." The person that wrote that needs to get a hold of Halliburton, Blackwater, and a few other war merchants and tell them that we can't pay them any more or they will be just a bunch of socialist. And you might as well call Dick Cheney; he has built a wealth of about $100 million at this socialist government's hog trough.

I have used this quote before by the late John Kenneth Galbraith:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Randy T/Lewisville, Texas – where I have seen this immoral justification of selfishness now for at least the last 20 years.

Posted by: Randy T/Lewisville TX | October 20, 2007 10:18 PM

Posted by: Moderatelad | October 20, 2007 11:55 AM

>But if the system is so good as you imply - why
>do you have private?

I don't have private health insurance at the moment. I see it as an unnecessary luxury when my experience with the state system has been so good. Previous employers has provided it as a "perk" (as Someone Who Thinks put it)

The NHS waiting lists for non-life threatening procedures can be quite long. That's the only reason I "go private". The only things I've ever needed to pay for are dentistry (please, no cracks about the British and dentists, it's just not true) and some physiotherapy. In both cases, it worked out cheaper to pay cash than take out insurance

Posted by: Richard Fannon | October 21, 2007 4:23 AM

James, as I encouraged you to do earlier, reread the Constitution. Then, if you have difficulty, read the Federalist Papers. That the government has no business in welfare is clearly spelled out, legally.

Then go read Scripture. You will find that SWripture never gives the task of charity to the civil government, that is reserved to the Church. The reason for that is poverty is a spiritual issue. The state is not designed to handle spiritual issues, only the Church is. Certainly poverty has some physical manifestations that must be met, but of all you do is meet those physical needs, you have not really cared for the person, you have just fed them.

As to high moral platitudes, I am a bit offended. Moralism is a false gospel, that robs us of understanding how desparate our need is, and how great is the Lords salvation. Rather than some moralistic platitude, I am truying to drive home the point that unless you believe the Gospel, you are only doing things half way. Bibllical belief changes how and what we think, which translates into actions. All you seem to want to do is pass out food, and I am trying to get you to see that that is simply not good enough. Bread releaves hunger, but the Gospel changes the heart. One without the other is simply a refusal to submit to Jesus.

As to those "leaders", they are neo-evangellical money changers, that will be delt with in Gods own time. I have seen a few as well. The problem is sin, and the Gospel is the cure.

Paul C. Quillman

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 21, 2007 9:12 AM

We already have socialized medicine.
Get seriously sick and you will be laid off. After some time goes by, you will find you cannot afford your private insurance. Then, after you have depleted enough of your savings, and possibly lost your home, you will hopefully qualify for a socialized medical program which already exists but differs from state to state.
To argue against a national health care system is meaningless and idiotic. It is the healthy arguing against the sick, thinking they will never become like them. It is a way to make give other people your money so you can say the government didn't steal it from you in taxes.

Posted by: been there, done that | October 21, 2007 10:43 AM

Yes, it does seem that those who benefit from a system will support it wholeheartedly, just as long as it does support them.

It's practically ridiculous to say that somehow church collection plates will somehow be paying all the doctors, nurses, hospitals, support staff, equipment and taxes of the entire medical industry. This is a practical absurdity not even close to being worthy of argument.

You can make money off the well-to-do sick, but not those who aren't - that is the problem for a wholly capitalist, completely self-interested approach. Basically, you must pretend to find moral justification for doing nothing about human suffering, to concur with the first murderer that you are NOT your brother's keeper.

Why not have the courage to just say you don't give a shit?

A fellow executive once explained to me he was morally superior to the person who cheated people or misused employees without conscience, because unlike him, he would agonize before he did the same thing.

My own experience as an executive made it plain that business does value honesty in its line employees because it does not want workers to steal from the company. However, at the executive level, what we look for in each other is rather co-conspirators.

Corporations want to get out of providing health care for employees just as fast as they possibly can. Unfortunately, the current system is almost completely based on the past and now dwindling majority participation of employers offering it as a tax perk.

You will note, though, that executives still give themselves and their families unbelievably generous medical care benefits at the same time they offload that from employees to the tune of many thousands of formerly insured per day, and that is true whether they are in the private or public sectors.

It's the grunts - whether injured soldiers back from Iraq or line workers at private companies - whom we as leaders don't give a rat's ass about. We hope somebody cares about it, but we surely can't with our legal obligation to the bottom line of shareholders.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Justin: Telling your adversary to go reread the Constitution or the Bible or the Federalist Papers or to go study Thomas Chalmers, Abraham Kuyper, CH Spurgeon, Dr. George Grant, and many others, does not make a case for anything.

Paul: Reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers distroys your arguement that the federal government should be involved in welfare. Reading Scripture distoys the claim that the government can actually care for the poor as defined by Scripture. Studying those who have actually done it before, distroys the myth that it is impractical and impossible. It has been done before, you simply lack the faith in the Gospel to change the hearts of those who have the resources to dispose of.

Justin: Apparently you think, like most libertarians, that America should terminate all social programs because you can't find social programs specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Paul: I am not libertarian. But calling me one does make it easier to ignore the arguements I make.

I do want social welfare to be done away with, PRIMARILY because Scripture does not grant government that role in society. Secondarily, the US Constitution does not allow the government the legal standing to do it either. You have lost the legal and theological arguement, but as long as you can make an emotionally manuliptive appeal, you might win a bit of public opinion, which is really what matters anyway.

As to when and how the government should get out of welfare, that is where looking to history beomes very istructive. Thomas Chalmers spent a great deal of time reovering the lost idea of parish in Edinburgh. Over a period of time, the city began to defund its welfare programs, because Chalmers preached the Gospel, in word and deed, the Gospel changed the hearts of the people, and they began to think and live differently. The poor could go to the church and find that only in the Gospel an dignity be brought to need. It has happened, and it can be duplicated. Is your faith in the government, or is it in the Gospel?

Justin: These are absurd positions and are challenged by most legal scholars.

Paul: Well if all you have to back your case up with is a majority poll, that may or may not exist, then I have lost this debate. After all, we know that polls that may or amy not exist trump actual facts.

Justin: As to your pronouncement that America is 'not a democracy but a democratic republic', read this item from Wikipedia:

Paul: Yes, because wikipedia is at least as dependable as the new york times (didn't both of these rags have "Jason Blair" problems). We are not named a democrati republic, but that does not negate the fact that we are. We have democratically elected (democracy) politicians that represent us in Congress (republic). I wonder, did you just take every bit of information that the government schools gave you without critical analysis?

Justin: I'll say it again, 'Libertarianism makes you stupid'.

Paul: And liberalism makes you classist, racist, and elitist. BTW, I am not libertarian.

NMRod: It's practically ridiculous to say that somehow church collection plates will somehow be paying all the doctors, nurses, hospitals, support staff, equipment and taxes of the entire medical industry. This is a practical absurdity not even close to being worthy of argument.

Paul: And yet, we can look through history and see how it has been done. Interestingly, when the Gospel is preached, people believe it, and their hearts are changes. When people's hearts and minds are changed they spend differently. Chalmers did it in Edinburgh. Those that had, gave, those that needed, recieved.

NMRod: You can make money off the well-to-do sick, but not those who aren't - that is the problem for a wholly capitalist, completely self-interested approach. Basically, you must pretend to find moral justification for doing nothing about human suffering, to concur with the first murderer that you are NOT your brother's keeper.

PaulWhich I am not doing. I am saying that if we are really Christians, we need to think, act and spend like it. And being my brothers keeper means bringing them into my home, feeding them, giving them a bed, preaching the Gospel to them, helping them find work, helping them become more self sustaining. If I wasn't interested in being my brothers keeper, I would ignore them, or worse, take them to the food stamp line.

NMRod: Why not have the courage to just say you don't give a shit?

Paul: If I didn't, I would send them to the government. But sense I don't send them to the government, I take them to the Gospel.

All I am seeing here is that the government is the sugar daddy. I see very little Gospel sanity.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 21, 2007 3:57 PM

Paul Quillman
Just one parishioner who needs a bone marrow transplant would bankrupt whatever church he or she belonged to. Your ideas are not practical and I belong to a church that does provide for the health needs of poor people everyday and I know of many instances where the body of Christ has done so. None of these churches would agree with you. You don't even need a medical catastrophe, the medical needs of the elderly would certainly do the same to most churches.What about all those who do not belong to a Church or claim to be religious in any way?
Your ideas are not only impractical and will never happen this side of the millennium, it would be unamerican as it would limit health care to any and all who did not believe.
Your ideas are so off base as to astound me. I find it hard to believe there is anyone who would give you the time it takes to argue. I will do so no longer.

As it is the system we have today only seems to work for those who have health insurance. This is because none of us can know how much we are paying for those who do not have insurance, both in taxes, higher premiums and higher costs. What we have now is not a private insurance program. It is a hidden, illogical, and poorly managed socialized health care system which only benefits the corporations who provide health care and drugs. It is private in name only. The only reason it has not been changed is because so much money is being made from it as it is.

Posted by: been there, done that | October 21, 2007 4:37 PM

What I'm finding is that there's a concerted effort to misrepresent the reality of both our own and other systems, which de facto serves the status quo which increasingly is working for far fewer people.

Unfortunately, as this occurs, those increasingly fewer people benefit even more, so those with the most resources to propagandize their own views benefit the most from resisting change, and are able to buy the most media mindshare.

I believe the consumers of this propaganda are sincere - they are most often echoing just what they've been told by the wealthy media figures they have trusted. But their re-propagation of it is an act that's not even in their own interest and well-being.

I think it would be wise to test all things, not to believe things simply because someone you consider authoritative who you don't even have any personal relationship with is being paid to do so through expensive media.

And don't be afraid, just because someone uses epithets, "SOCIALISM!!!" inaccurately in order to scare you into thinking about real solutions or looking at reality in a practical way. Don't, as the scripture warns, let other men make merchandise of you.

As well, don't sacrifice the human needs of others on the altar of abstract ideologies.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | October 21, 2007 4:53 PM

"Mr. Quillman is a case study in political brainwashing by the Christofascistic crime syndicate."

This is one of the single dumbest sentences I have ever read. Paul has presented a cohesive argument that federal government ought to abstain from being involved in the disbursement of public welfare money. Instead of providing a cohesive counterpoint (and one does exist), you have resorted banal insults, coupled with compelling evidence that you don't even understand Civics.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 21, 2007 6:20 PM

Justintime
I am afraid Kevin is at least partially correct. I seriously doubt that you have written "the single dumbest sentences...(he has) ever read."
Kevin are you and Moderatelad ever going to challenge a conservative who is "off" or do you only referee for one side?
While Paul may have an argument, what he lacks is a solution that has any chance of working. As long as the answer is just faith, why don't we all become Christian Scientists? Then we could do away with health care altogether and save us a lot of money in taxes, not to mention health insurance premiums. Any disease would just be the fault of the sick not believing. This has the added benefit of our being able to walk away from the sick and disabled, non believer sick people, like the religious leaders did in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan.

Posted by: | October 21, 2007 8:57 PM

Justin: Mr. Quillman is a case study in political brainwashing by the Christofascistic crime syndicate.

Paul: Yes, because baseless accusations and name calling will win debates, over actual facts.

Justin: He can't be held responsible for his opinions at this time.

Paul: Being of sound mind, I take full responsibility for my comments, espicially sense you have offered no real arguement to refute my positions.

Justin: Mr. Quillman must first be deprogrammed before he can be reeducated.

Paul: No thanks. I would rather hold to the sanity of the Gospel, than the worthlessness of Babylon.

Someone anonymously posted: While Paul may have an argument, what he lacks is a solution that has any chance of working.

Paul: Actually, the solution I propose is first examining Thomas Chalmers model in Edinburgh. First, preach the Gospel, then let the Gospel; change the heart of the church. When hearts are changes, thinking is changed. Deeds are changed. Spending is changed. Instead of having a culture that is ingrown, you find God's people begin to go where Jesus went. You find that people intentionally seek out the underprivledged, not for some kind of guilt asuaging, but because they see image bearers of the living God in need, and they can't not offer relief. Until that happens, the welfare system should stay in place. There is no reasonable need to further damage the poor than they already are. The current system should be defunded, in equal proportion to the church taking up the glorious calling it has been given. This redues the risk of more people falling through the cracks than already do.

Someone anonymously posted: As long as the answer is just faith, why don't we all become Christian Scientists? Then we could do away with health care altogether and save us a lot of money in taxes, not to mention health insurance premiums. Any disease would just be the fault of the sick not believing. This has the added benefit of our being able to walk away from the sick and disabled, non believer sick people, like the religious leaders did in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan.

Paul: You misunderstand the nature of Biblical faith. Regardless of the ammount of faith someone demonstrates, sickness, poverty, and such are a present reality. They are not a sign of a lack of faith. You are talking about the "name it and claim it gospel which is no Gospel at all" types. That is unBiblical. I am asking those who want the government to do this stuff where they place their faith.

Poverty is first a spiritual issue that has physical implications. The hungry need to be fed, but if all you do is fill stomaches, you have not done much. Poverty is reflective of our standing before God. This is why Thomas Chalmers said that the rich need the poor far more than the poor need the rich. The rich need to be reminded of our standing before God. We are naked, battered, hungry, sick and destitude. Jesus clothes us, feeds us, heals us, and gives us hope. Being rich does not make us sinners, we sin because we are sinners, rich and poor alike. THe state is not able to recognize that, only the church is. Only the church is equiped to understand the spiritual needs and the physical needs, and the church alone can meet both at the same time.

James: I have read it and studied Constitutional Law. I would encourage you to read the constitution and case law interpreting the constitution. The constitution does not interpret itself. You might want to start with the concept of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison.

Paul: The Constitution does not require as much interpretation as you seem to think. It is a pretty self explanitory document. However, if there is an area that you have trouble with, read the Federalist Papers. They provide much insite into what the framers of the Constitution intended.

James: Also, if you want to lock the way we use and interpret the constitution to the late 1700s and early 1800s world, that is your prerogative but it has no basis in reason or reality.

Paul: That is actually how to properly read the Constitution. Read it asking what the authors intended, not what you want to interject into it. That is lazy. If you want to change the Constitution, there is a Constitutionally prescribed process for doing so. The framers were not so arrogant to think that their reality would be our reality. They made provision for a changing context. You have just taken the easy road, and circumvented the law. You still have not delt with the legal issue.

James: Same argument here. The Bible was not written at the time of representative democracy and I as a citizen in a democracy can freely express my view that the State can have a role in helping the less fortunate as an expression of my Christian values.

Paul: But Scripture has not changed, and neither has how Sripture should be understood changed. I never said that you could not speak your mind on the role of the sate. The 1st Ammendment grants you that right. However, Sripture leaves the caring for the less fortunate to the church, not the government. I have outlined the reasons ablve. You still have not delt with the theological issue.

James: Feel free to wear any archaic straightjacket you want but I will never buy your argument that your view of these issues is any more correct or orthodox than mine.

Paul: Perhaps you should read Scripture and let Scripture impose upon you what to think, instead of imposing your theological and political prefrences upon Scripture.

Posted by: | October 21, 2007 10:27 PM

Moderatelad,
Australia like the UK has a mixed health system. Our federal government susbsidises Private Health Insurance (by 30%) for those who want it and they apply an additional 1% tax on people over a certain income who don't have it ($50000 single, $100000 families).

The more people who self-fund (have private insurance) the less the govt has to spend so that's why they promote the second system. Private system also has shorter waiting lists (for some things) and choice of own doctor. Public system does not include some 'cosmetic' procedures (like lap-banding or circumcision).

In many cases our public system is able to provide better care. In my state if you have a child born with a serious problem, they will be transfered to the major public hospital (Mater Mothers) even if they were born in a private hospital.

I know it's been stated before on these pages, but even the conservatives in Australia and the UK must sound like rabid socialists to you, (no-one would have it any other way). The arguments against socialised health care just sound bizarre from outside. There are some areas where the US lead us by miles (Aus doesn't have a Bill of Rights - no legislatively protected freedom of speech), but I doubt that health care is one of them. (oh and our budget is in surplus again - being socialists hasn't bankrupted us).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 21, 2007 10:57 PM

Trent: I hope you're suggesting that we are all 'poor' before God (which is true), and not that some people are poor because of their standing before God. But when I read ...

Paul: You are correct. Before God, we are in such poverty that it is unimaginable. Someones bank account has absolutely nothing to do with how God views us. His gracious condensention to us in Jesus is where we are to place our worth, not the size of our bank acounts.

Trent: It made it sound like being physically poor is actually an indicator of your spiritual health. Like the poor have greater spiritual needs than the rich. Because if that's not what your saying then why would you have churches providing for the spiritual needs of the poor.

Paul: Not at all. I am saying that physical poverty is a picture of our spiritual poverty before God. It has absolutely nothing to do with money. I know many poor and rich alike that find their hope in Jesus. The poor take their need to Jesus, the rich take their wealth to Jesus. This is how the Gospel works. This is how need is given dignity. As to our spiritual needs, we are all equally desparately needy. Scripture clearly tells us that rich, poor, middle class, everyone deserves two things:
1) Death, and
2) Hell

Anything else is a gracious gift of God.

Trent: On a related issue, imagine that you were King of your own small Kingdom. A position, according the Romans 13 that God had granted you authority in. Then, as a Christian man and King, what would you do for the poor? You may choose to make a mental separation for yourself, these actions are just me as a man, while these are me as a King. You may seek to share your wealth, to share your spiritual life, to lift up those you meet out of poverty. But what if there was a systematic injustice which pervaded your kingdom and created conditions for poverty. If you could not change these conditions as a man, would you do so as a King?

Paul: Let me deal with this a bit differently than you asked, because I do not live in the context of a monarchy. Lets lookm at Paul in the New Testament. When the Jerusalem church faced extreme poverty, where did Paul go? He went to the churches he planted. There was even a church that was not financially sound, and they gave anyway. Paul did not go to Rome, he went to the church.

In terms of the USA, there have been laws that are unjust. There are some current practices that are opressive, and degrading. Scripture requires that the government remove those legal injustices, and if appropriate, to make recompense for that injustice. Once those laws and practices are abolished, and necessary recompence has been made, the church then has the obligation to move in to fill the needs that exist as a result of the injustices that previously existed, and providing whatever help that is needed to lift someone out of poverty.

As a king, my obligation is to see that the laws are not opressive, and that if there are any such laws, they are to be done away with. After that, my obligation as magistrate is to ensure that opressive laws and practices are no longer imposed. As a fellow image bearer of the living God, my obligation is to demonstrate the Gospel in word AND DEED.

Posted by: | October 22, 2007 12:18 AM

>>>"This is one of the single dumbest sentences I have ever read." Kevin S

In fact, Kevin, if you re-read what you just wrote, it is utter nonsense. How can something be "one of" and "single" and plural ("sentences") all at the same time?

In the words of President George Z. Garfield - Sheesh!

Posted by: canucklehead | October 22, 2007 12:44 AM

Paul,
"I am saying that physical poverty is a picture of our spiritual poverty before God. It has absolutely nothing to do with money."

So being poor has nothing to do with money?

I really wish you'd stuck to my kingdom question. You seem to be missing the point that we are not under Roman rule and we live in democracies. What Paul did or did not do while under Roman rule is irrelevant because he had no say in the government under which he lived. We can only imagine what he'd have done if he had a say.

We do know from Scripture that rulers in the OT were chastised for failing to meet the needs of the poor. (Isa 3, Eze 16, Jer 2 etc) But it's not possible to find any NT counterparts because there are no NT Christian rulers.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 22, 2007 12:53 AM

Trent: So being poor has nothing to do with money?

Paul: Not what I said. Our standig before God has nothing to do with money. Our spiritual condition cannot be measured by our bank accounts. Poverty is an image of how we all, rich and poor alike, stand before God.

Trent: I really wish you'd stuck to my kingdom question. You seem to be missing the point that we are not under Roman rule and we live in democracies. What Paul did or did not do while under Roman rule is irrelevant because he had no say in the government under which he lived. We can only imagine what he'd have done if he had a say.

Paul: So Scripture is irrelevant? Paul was a Roman citizen. He did have certain rights as a citizen.

Trent: We do know from Scripture that rulers in the OT were chastised for failing to meet the needs of the poor. (Isa 3, Eze 16, Jer 2 etc) But it's not possible to find any NT counterparts because there are no NT Christian rulers.

Paul: Yes, Israel was chastsed, but the chasisement came from God when he punished the people for idol worship, it was not a legal and civil chastisement. The NT counterparts would be the elders and deacons. Actually, the deacons were established for this very reason, to look after the orphans and widows, specifically, bu the poor in general. Those that had brought it to the church, those that needed brought their need to the church. Need was dignified, and satisfied, unlike the current government system. The Gospel was preached in word and deed to all that ame to the church.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | October 22, 2007 7:39 AM

Amazon, loved your soup analogy. And it's great to be reading some of the new voices in this thread--I was afraid we would just be retreading the old arguments from the past three weeks again, but that hasn't been the case.

Now, to my fellow single-payer advocates: Have you ever noticed how every person who argues with you against a government-sponsored single-payer health program sems to have an uncle in Canada who had to come down here for heart surgery?!! (I don't think there are enough middle-aged men in Canada to supply an uncle to all these folks, but for the time being let's assume they're telling the truth.) Here's the response I give:

a) Why do you assume a correlation between waiting for surgery and the way that health care is insured? Is it possible that the waiting time for certain procedures in Canada is caused by factors other than their single-payer system (like a shortage of certain kinds of specialists), and would continue even if Canada privatized its health insurance system?

b) If you believe that the much-referenced waiting periods for certain procedures is due to a shortage of doctors in Canada due to doctors not wanting to work within the Canadian system (a far-reaching assumption to say the least), and you believe that U.S. conversion to a single-payer system would cause doctors in this country to become disgruntled and leave, to which country do you think they will emigrate? Hong Kong? Sierra Leone?

c) A recent poll in Canada said nearly 70 percent of Canadians were satisfied with their system. An even higher percentage said they would not want to adopt an American-style system.

I hope I have sufficiently poked holes in the my-uncle-in-Canada-came-down-here-for-heart-surgery argument against single-payer.

Posted by: I and I | October 22, 2007 10:13 AM

"You were asked, or at least it was stated that under your ideal every church would be bankrupted by health care costs. What is your reply?"

This is not Paul's reply, obviously, but why is this necessarily so? If churches are to small to absorb one loss, it can still either

a) Reinsure itself as an institution through a larger Christian organization.

b) Join a co-operative with other like-minded, trustworthy churches.

"Kevin, when were you in Melbourne? I'll assume early nineties. Your comment on the unemployment is interesting but incomplete. We did at that time have unemployment rates above 10%."

1999. I went to Melbourne Uni for a semester. They were sitting at 9.2%, and that was during a worldwide economic boom. That was right before Howard was elected. Now it is, what 5%? That's not a coincidence.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 22, 2007 10:34 AM

Re Socialism: WHO CARES if it does lead us to Socialism? I'm sorry I regularly talk to Evangelical Christians in Ireland, Holland, Canada all the time who are proud of their country's public health. If it weren't for that, they would easily get along witn most Christians everywhere. I know one Christian girl who moved from Canada to Ireland and marveled at the way Socialism is seen as a bad thing in America.

Which gets me back to Jim Waliis' previous point. The USA Church is a Babylonian Whore that needs desperately to dialouge with Christians elsewhere. If skittishness about socialism is the problem, let's remove that little problem like the boil on the Body of Christ that it is.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | October 22, 2007 2:35 PM

You can tell ModerateLad that most native Brits would far rather be ill (US "get sick") in their own country than in his. The National Health Service, for all its faults, delivers - and withour checking your credit rating first!

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | October 22, 2007 4:53 PM

>>>"Huh? If there is a bowl filled with oranges, and you want a single orange, you will ask for one of the oranges, as in one amongst the oranges. Do you think this is charming and Canadian?"

You, Kevin, are right again. As usual, as, um, always...even when you're mixing apples and oranges.

Posted by: canucklehead | October 22, 2007 6:34 PM

During the sixties and eighties conservatives like yourself despised the system and gutted it. That sabotaged the system and led to a continued and further erosion for upward economic mobility.

What a crock , who are you kidding . enough of the race baiting , impossible to have an intellectual exchange with a liberal in a debates , as seen here , liberals use class warfare , race baiting and personal attacks .
Get a clue , you believe the family staying together has little to with poverty , out of wedlock births in a conservative agenda put upon by racists and the rich . Everytime opportunities such as school choice are offered , it dismissed because indeed your idealogy keeps people locked in prison . Some school kids believe doing well in school is a white thing , give those Black kids to go to schools where that is not the norm , and you will see the getthoes start todisappear . Education does that .

Trying saying something that is not rooted in ignorance sometime please . It is getting old

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | October 22, 2007 7:51 PM

Well Mick

I went to UCLA and did fairly well in highschool. My ideology doesn't keep people in prison. It actually does something that your ideology is too cowardly and lazy to do. It goes to the schools that are floundering and builds them up. Yours wants them to be wiped out. The choice you offer favors only a few individuals. The choice I am offering attempts to help the masses. See the difference?

It isn't race baiting to point out and have a real conversation that includes class, race, gender... That's real conversation and does more than merely mention ignorance. As if that's the single cause for being poor in this country. Ignorance can be a cause but it's usually tied w/ a bunch of other stuff including personal choice, parent's savings, race, gender, sexual orientation...

I don't understand how conservatives can pretend that discrimination has been wiped out. Can't we be honest and say that our society is screwed up and work to fix it? Can we at least do that?

p

Posted by: payshun | October 22, 2007 8:02 PM

Kevin Wayne: Re Socialism: WHO CARES if it does lead us to Socialism?

Paul: Because socialism is an unBiblical form of government. It is based on a humanistic construct that is antithetical to the Gospel.

Wayne: so the answer is to switch from employer based or private insurance to insurance purchased through the church? Where does that leave an atheist or agnostic, or an orphan for that matter?

Paul: Not at all. If your company offers insurance and you can afford it, make use of it. If you can afford insurance on your own, do that. What I am advocating is that we allow the Gospel to change everything. In regards to spending, instead of buying the 50 inch HDTV, spend less money and get the 43 inch. Better yet, go to a pawn shop, buy something adequate for your needs, and put the rest away for extending to the poor. Eat at home, and not at the drive thru. Instead of buying a brand new H3, buy a used H2 or H1. Or buy a used Explorer, and take the money you did not spend in invest it into the Kingdom. Buy a smaller house. Or if it is possible, do an addition to your existing house(usually tens of thousands of dollars cheaper) and invest the difference in the advancement of the Kingdon. In the USA we currently experience material wealth at a lever much of the rest of the world cannot fathom. I am not saying do not buy stuff, I am saying be more intentional about what and how much you buy. Buy what you need. Give the rest away. I read quite a bit about how the government needs to do this or that for the underprivledged, but what about how we as individuals spend our resoures? I am not advocating that we should all empty our bank accounts, but first lets empty our hearts of whatever keeps us from believing the Gospel, and giving our lives away. I am not saying we should not enjoy the fruits of our labor, we should. It is Gods generous gift to us that we should gratefully enjoy, but how about enjoying some of those gifts with those who are not as well off as we are? How about passing some of that blessing to those who are not as fortunate as we are? There seems to be very little, if any discussion of personal charity here, and far mopre focus on taking what is not your at gunpoint, and redistributing it to someone else, or in shorter terms, legalized theft.

Wayne: But what happens when a person gets seriously ill?
Medical bills go through the ceiling very quickly.
I know one man who pays $900.00 per month for just one medication he needs just to keep a kidney transplant from going bad. He has no insurance. Diabetics require constant care. It is not cheap. What can be done for most will not do for many. God forbid one of your children is struck by a life threatening disease. Would your coop be enough without your insurance? How would what others pay for colds and flu pay enough to supplement this org to take car of three HIV/AIDS patients?

Paul: As to the insurance coops, I am not sure how they work. I have heard about a couple of them, and considered joining one instead of taking COBRA (the biggest joke in the insurance industry), but opted not to. As I recall, everyone who signed up paid something, and I believe that any legit medical condition was covered. I also believe that they verified claims with doctors so that no one could cheat the system It was started and run by a group of rich Christians(GASP!!! A rich Christian that takes the Gospel seriously? Ho wcan this be? I thought that all rich people were evil and greedy? And to find a group of them. I find it hard to believe such a group exists, based on what I have read here.) who wanted to provide an alternative to company sponsered health insurnance.

Payshun: The constitution says nothing about the government providing welfare or not.

Paul: Yes, and no. The Constitution does not say anything about welfare. And if it did not have the 10th ammendment, you could make a legitemate Constitutional case for federally funded health care. But the 10th ammendment gets in the way. The only Constitutional option left to you is to get an ammendment add to it, which can be done, and the Constitution provides a process for that to be done.

Payshun: I tell you now that welfare has done good for many people.

Paul: I have seen differently. I use to work for a rent-to-own company that no longer exists. The location I worked at was in Memphis on Jackson Ave. We were on one end of the strip mall, the welfare office was on the opposite end of the strip mall. Daily, I saw moms with 4 or 5 kids come in and want to get a big screen tv, or an oversized stereo. The only source of income they would give was AFDC. This happened at least once a day, and multiple times on Saturdays. The kids were from different fathers. And in many cases it was generational. One generation after another trapped in a system that breesd classism and racism. How is that doing anyone any good?

How is it Biblical to allow such a system to continue? And why are you sending someone to the government? Why aren't you investing your own personal resources into the Kingdom?

Posted by: | October 22, 2007 10:24 PM

"Well P like they say you can have your opinion , but not the facts . two thirds of all African Americans and Hispanics in this country are illiterate in the fourth grade . Talk about a cowardly , just keep doing the same thing and turn your backs on those kids . Kepp allowing the NEA to control your political party , of course its for the kids . Thats a prison not designed by rich racists , Bush has increased finding for education 40 percent since 2001 . Academia and most of all Government Programs have more control by the NEA and Democratic Party , which has become basically the same in many regions ."

Me:
I have worked in education on and off for 10 years. I can actually back up what I am saying and I can reveal how your facts don't tell the whole story and seldom do.

Oh and I never said the white conservative kids are lazy when it comes to school. Quite the opposite, where I have seen intellectual laziness is in their defense of the greedy founders and their racist ideals. They were lazy there.

Bush's no child left behind policy has its strengths and weaknesses. It's strengths include actual testing to see how schools are doing. It's weaknesses are it's rigidness and it's inability to deal w/ schools that increase their scores but still fail the mark. Instead of building those schools up No Child left behind punishes them which is devastating to childhood development. Trust me I was a teacher and my kids actually told me as much.

Is it fair for students to take a test (the Cahsee exam) when they are recent immigrants and can't speak the language? That's what No Child Left Behind does. Actually the monies spent on innercity school kids are a lot less than what is actually spent on kids in better neighborhoods for whom high property taxes maintain their schools, rich parents can afford tutors and companies like the ones I used to work for like Kaplan and Princeton Review. So actually your facts point to a general conclusion that is not actually backed up by what's going on on the ground.

But let's keep going. I taught bilingual education and my latin kids (90 percent of my classroom) would actually lament about the lame treatment they would recieve from guidance counsellors (because they spoke Spanish) and were latin while the society at large made them feel unwelcome in this country. Regardless of what you say race and their nationality was an issue for them and I spent a lot of time fighting against that negative rejection to encourage them to do better.

Several of my non white students would say some of the most racist statements about Arabs, Sikhs and other ethnic groups. Don't even get me started on how they treated the gay students in their midst. Sorry but you can continue to ignore that if you want to. But I can't.

I laughed out loud when you said this:
To me thats why liberals win and fail , you have to promote a system for have nots , and if you can get as maInterestingly , the more minorities who become indepenedent , they tend to vote republicam in higher percentages . By people depending on government you win . How sad.

Me:
In case you may have not noticed blacks voted over 90% against republicans and then on top of that Latins also are voting in higher margins against you guys because many of them find your policies to be xenophobic and hurting their families so what you just said makes no sense.

You also said:
As if discrimination will ever be wiped out .

Me:
Doesn't mean we should not try or pretend it's not there.

You:
Right . A real convesration with the cowardly and lazy . Thanks , I suggest you get a translator . .

Me:
Like I need a translator to understand the nonsense you speak. Become a teacher and find out what your students will say to you. Walk out in the hallways of these highschools and see how they treat each other. I don't bring up race but because they feel safe w/ me they tell me. I don't bring up LGBTQ issues and yet I had highschool students feeling safe around me to talk about how they were picked on or not accepted. So keep ignoring that.

You:
Right things are getting better just the way they are . You think maybe the Bible had it right about bad company corrupting good morals . Not in a red letters , so I guess not .

Me:
Mick I never said things were going to get better the way they are. I said my ideology actually promotes change from access to better materials, computers, tutors, and other issues that bring up student test scores. I ought to know I spent years doing just that. Yours ignores that and assumes that those bad apples are not redemable. I happen to know that many are if they have teachers that spend time teaching them.

Oh and I am not a redletter Christian. I find the movement to be a little silly. I do prioritize the gospels and the prophets and the saints. What are you gonna do I am contemplative.

You also said:
Who increasingly are exiting the system in some cases , The black community is starting to increase their desire for charters and vouchers also , how long do you want those slums to last?

Me:
I never wanted those slums in the first place. So instead of letting all those people fall through the cracks which is what you want (even though you are too nice to say so) we should rebuild the waste places and do some good. Can we agree on that?

Paul,
I too have seen waste on welfare roles. But I have seen some and actually much good come when people have a plan and a committment to overcome the consumerist mindset that is all the rage in this country.

Racism and classism were around before that and have been from the founding of this country. Capitalism is not biblical. There is no evidence anywhere in scripture that God wants that system practiced any more than socialism. Both systems are corrupt and breed destruction if you doubt that ask the millions of Africans burried at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean about American capitalism.

Oh and I am not a strict constructionist. I believe clause ten allows for some flexibility as it was not as originally as rigid construed when it was originally written.

p

Posted by: payshun | October 22, 2007 11:38 PM

"In 1999 Howard had already been our Prime Minister for three years. He's been in the role almost 12 years (we limit his power but not his time). Not sure what point you were trying to make about socialism. And I like the way you side-skipped my point that at the same time we had our highest employment rate ever."

I stand corrected on Howard. I was piecing that together from memory, which failed me miserably. I will also correct myself regarding the unemployment rate when I was there. Perhaps I am remembering the rate in Victoria. Nonetheless, my point stands that Howard's reforms substantially reduced the unemployment rate.

As for women moving into the market whils unemployment increases, that is never a positive economic development, as it generally indicates an increase in two income families. Unemployment is a valuable indicator because it is a constant ration, and can be easily compared to other years.

"There is no biblical model for democracy or for socialism. "

This is correct.

Posted by: kevin s. | October 23, 2007 12:17 AM

Kevin,
actually the rise in women in the work force in Australia was because of another socialist program, subsidised child care. It enabled women who wanted to work the ability to do so.

So it's true that our unemployment rate was about 10%, but at that time our percentage of adults actually in work rose to it's highest level of about 75%. And now, under Howard we are actually doing still better and we've increased taxes and we've only privatised one industry and we've beefed up socialist support structures. Our unemployment has always been historically higher than that in the US because we have a much higher minimum wage (work here really does work).

Our socialist democracy is not perfect by any means, but there is no evil inherent in our socialist leanings (probably a residue of our criminal pasts).

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | October 23, 2007 1:50 AM

Trent: If socialism is the state taking responsibility for people

Paul: No, socialism is forced wealth redistribution at gunpoint. It is the state forcing one to give what does not belong to the state to someone else. There is no charity involved here. It is not voluntary.

Paul: Because socialism is an unBiblical form of government. It is based on a humanistic construct that is antithetical to the Gospel.

canucklehead: Like sharing?

Paul: Sharing is volintary. Socialism is forced redistribution.

Paul to James: "Perhaps you should read Scripture and let Scripture impose upon you what to think, instead of imposing your theological and political prefrences upon Scripture."

James: Perhaps you should follow the law of love instead of some archaic judgmental view of both the constitution and scripture that has been rejected centuries ago. Enough said. This discussion isn't going anywhere and is no longer worth the key strokes it involves.

Paul: How else can Scripture or the Constitution be understood other than the way the authors intended them to be understood? Anything else is an attempt to insert ones own thinking into the story, and that is