Universal health care is the only Christian option  

I agree lil......too many people that are too lazy to take care of themselves, they already get food stamps if they do not have enough money, plus food for each rug rat they brought into the world and a reduction in their rent. I know a gal that pays $800 a month for rent of a townhouse. Across the street from her a female with 2 childern under 11 lives for $85 a month, she does not work and she gets food stamps and ADC. She does not have a clue as to who the father is. She does have a nice satalite dish for her plasma tv though. The people that have because they worked for it are getting sick and tired of paying for these people.

What you describe here sounds exactly like how Jews and Samaritans felt about each other. They thought less of them for whatever reason (whether that be because of race back then or poor lifestyle choices now). You have called them sloths (aka lazy) and just dismissed them as sinners, basically. Now, sinners have always been the least of God's people. And (if you are a Christian) do I really need to tell you how we should be treating the least of God's people?

But, lil, there are too many who don't fall into any of the categories you mention...who don't qualify for medicaid or medicare, who can't take care of themselves because they either don't have employer provided health coverage, can't afford to pay for private insurance or are considered uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition. People who have illnesses that need regular treatment and/or medication who can't depend on charity hospitals and those who live in areas of the country where there are none. My brother-in-law does not "want" everyone else to take care of him...but he has a hole in what's left of his throat because he's a 2 time cancer survivor and he is uninsurable.

muscles, the people who receive food stamps, cash assistance and housing assistance also get free medical care through medicaid.

Amen!!!

and amen again

Taxes are not stealing; they are paying unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Also in the Bible.

There is a difference between mixing religion and politics and using religious philosophy to think about politics. All I'm saying is that the only the Christian religion says to take care of your fellow man. When you have a government that is of, by, and for the people. The government is man and should take care of its fellow men (its citizens) if you believe in the Christian philosophy. Or most religious philosophies for that matter. The only one that I can think of off the top of my head that would be against such a thing is Satanism, which is kind of scary when you consider who aligns themselves with THAT philosophy in this situation.

Furthermore, I am HUGE problems with the bill as currently written. I am not talking about the current bill here. The fact that it does NOT have universal health care in it is my BIGGEST problem with it.

"they are paying unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

That part of the bible has been interpreted many ways, but the fact is that Jesus was never a fan of tax collectors.

That of course doesn't even get into the fact that 40% of the people in this country don't pay a dime of federal income tax. Furthermore when you are making 5% of the population foot the health care bill for the other 95%, that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Besides, your arguments and attempts to compare those opposing this to Satanists are not only weak, but completely ignore the point of my original post. Christians should use THEIR OWN time and money to help others, not steal it through taxation on the unpopular minority.

Shall poor children also go hungry and freeze to death in the cold, taskr? Do you consider your tax dollars that support Social Service programs to also be stolen from you?

Social service programs aren't all being paid for by 5% of the population. Aside from that I'm still a bigger supporter of private non-profits that do that work and donate my money to them by choice. Either way social service programs are a necessity since some children don't have homes and parents that take care of them so of course I'm not opposed to them. That's much different than dealing with able-bodied adults though.

So, then do you believe that there should be programs available for adults who are not able-bodied yet still able to support themselves? The working class Americans who have pre-existing conditions and can't get private insurance?

I believe people with preexisting conditions should be able to get private insurance albeit at a higher rate. After all, if they got it at the same rate as those without any preexisting conditions, there would be no point in paying for insurance until you needed it.

So you believe that those folks should be penalized for having an illness? Private insurance is already way too expensive, with outrageous deductables, so you don't get much for your monthly premium payment unless you wind up in the hospital.

Would you spend months paying for insurance if you knew you could just get it the day you needed it for the same price? Would you keep it after using it and continue paying premiums if you could drop it and just pick it back up when you needed it? The whole point of insurance is you get it, pay into it, and then when you need it, it's there. If you get it AFTER you need it then you have an insurance company that can spend hundreds of thousands on your care while getting nothing from you except one month's payment. Insurance companies can't function that way so if they have to cover a person with a preexisting condition there has to be something in place to keep them from going bankrupt.

What about those who are born with certain illnesses or develop them as children while they're covered under their parents' policies? Should they be penalized when they become adults even though their parents paid into the system? There are thousands who fit into that category. I don't buy the logic that covering this group at a reasonable rate will bankrupt the insurance industry.

You know my personal concern in this area. My granddaughter will be off her mother's policy in April when she turns 19. Her insulin costs $100 a bottle, the testing strips cost $100 for a box of 100. She has to test several times a day and give herself several shots a day. Even if she could afford to pay a high monthly premium, she would still have to pay for her diabetic supplies out of pocket, along with the cost of being seen by her doctors until she satisfied a deductable that would be well over a grand.

For situations like that I think it should be treated similar to the way it is with auto insurance. You need to show proof of past coverage when applying for insurance to keep the same rate.

My grand daughter has some health issues that cause he to be over weight. She was eligible for WIC and was seen monthly by a Government Nurse. My daughter was told to take her home and don't let her eat so much. Reduce her calorie intake. Here is you cheese, whole milk, peanut butter, Juice (with sugar added) and cereal now go home and let us worry about your child. She went to a dietitian, at her expense, and was told that WIC was not really a nutrition program and probably caused more over weight children. Government programs are always done for Political gain not the benefit of the people. WIC was a pay off tot he dairy farmers and peanut farmers. Food Stamps is not a program to feed the hungry but a farm subsidy program. Health Care is not to improve Health Care but to tax you more. Social Security is a tax not a retirement program. Government programs are to benefit government and if it helps some people that is extra.

That's not going to work because her mother has employer provided health coverage at a group rate. The insurance industry is not going to agree to give thousands of people individual policies at a group rate and, even if they did, there would be thousands of others screaming about those who are receiving "special treatment". It's okay to deny someone something they need but don't dare give someone something at a cheaper rate than you're paying for the same thing.

Is it fair to pay into something and then NOT get it because you THOUGHT you were covered because of MISLEADING practices of the insurance company?

Jesus was a friend to tax collectors, by the way (Mark 2:16. I think).

What Jesus didn't like about tax collectors was that they were the corrupt politicians of his day. They didn't collect taxes, they extorted money from people and took more than they were supposed to (generally for themselves). They would repent themselves by doing something good in return (ie, taking care of the sick and the poor). Wow, sounds pretty much like how our government tries (though often fails) to work.

I suggest looking up the federal government Job Corp program. It does good, helps people with their lives, etc.

The government runs a lot of successful programs. When they run correctly, you don't even notice them.

Right. And that's going to 300 million Americans, so I guess they can handle universal healthcare now.

Job training and the like isn't 1/6th of America's economy, I don't suspect. Compartmentalized things are not large government -- this is a branch of a cabinet.

Let as many people use Job Corps as use the DMV and see how well they do. Job Corps, in this context, is more of an elective program. I would be interested to see how much fraud and waste is in that, however, just for shts and giggles.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor is far from a well-oiled machine. If Job Corp works well through that particular department's education and training program, then kudos to that particular branch for not dropping the ball. Force everyone to use it as an entitlement, I have a feeling Job Corp wouldn't be a shining example of government, large or small.

I think it's awesome if Job Corp helps some people out. However, this isn't much of an example of large government running something well. This is a branch out of the limelight that many people have no need for -- wholly unlike healthcare.

DMV is a not federally run. I happen to live in the largest City in the this country and last time I renewed my license I went to the busiest DMV in the nation. It was also a well-oiled machine, because it had to be, it serviced a massive number of people. Many smaller branches (the ones people have problems with) suffer because they aren't constantly dealing with a great number of people, so when there is an influx, it clogs up.

The US Census covers all 300 million Americans. It seems well run to me. Our government is AMAZING at what it can do!

It costs so much for people to answer role call. lol ... Yeah, I get the point.

You seem intent that this government can and should do it.

No more argument from me about it. To each their own.

I would only say that, having looked around at other areas of America where progressive liberal politicians have free reign, I certainly do not trust this government to run anything effectively.

And distrust of your government is a good thing! Questioning your government is a good thing! You will get no objections from me there. And while I too have certain distrusts of my government here as well, I still think that the government CAN be a force for good too.

What's your evidence for that last statement?

Observe and thine eyes shall see...

I do think you need to be more specific. I mean, Obama is a man who chose to be a Christian in his adult life. That suggests a conscious choice once someone understood what it is all about before leaping in, as opposed to most people who do it simply because that's how they were raised, but don't understand any sort of meaning behind it.

That plan you described is an amazing one! My deductible is much higher!

I think there is a problem with transparency right now, but for the entire course of the debate? Hardly! Google searching just a few weeks ago, I easily found on a .gov the current version of the bill being considered. I read it, and there are some good parts to it, but there are also some very bad parts as well.

We have the tools to be informed but few will take the initiative.

Don't people over 70 qualify for medicare? The "death counseling", as I recall, involves the discussion of advance directives, living wills and designating medical proxies...something everyone should be informed about. My husband's doctor at the V.A. Medical Center has discussed these topics with him as well and provided him with the forms. Is the V.A. trying to kill our veterans, too?

It's obvious neither you or your husband have taken time to read the bill that is on the floor. Furthermore, Medicare is government aid...the government is not going to pay for people who are no longer contributing to their Federal Reserve scam, they are going to counsel them then let them die. Do your own research please before coming around at me like that. People should be praying this bill doesn't pass.

As a matter of fact, I have read quite a bit of the House version of the bill which is why it's obvious to me that you haven't researched it and are simply spouting some of the popular fear mongering spin. The relevent section, if you'd care to read it, is Sec. 1233 - Advance Care Planning Consultation, which has been discussed here before. As I've previously indicated, this counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with suggesting that anyone die and I challange you to quote here exactly where that is even hinted at. While you're at it, also please note how many times the phrase "life sustaining treatment" is used and how this bill will ensure that a patient's wishes will be followed by all health care professionals, ie. EMS, Emergency Room personnel, hospital and nursing home personnel as well as hospice. It's only common sense that an individual should update their living will should their medical condition change. The elderly, as a group, are more prone to declines in their health and this bill actually ensures that their individual wishes will be met...not the opposite as you have so erroneously claimed. Right now, for instance, I have a DNR under very specific circumstances in my advance directive. Should I develop a terminal illness in the future it is my intention to modify it at some point to include an across the board DNR and/or the removal of a feeding tube once I have reached the stage where I am unresponsive. Why should I subject my family to a difficult decision they don't need to be responsible for making? My husband is also my medical proxy...which is another thing that is addressed in the bill. There will be no confusion or challanges to his authority to make decision on my behalf by any health care professionals according to this section of the bill. You might want to do your own research before coming around me like that.

I didn't say that I'm agreeing with the current health care bill; I'm saying we need universal coverage. There is a difference.

I'm not assuming everyone is Christian. I'm saying Christians have a hard time opposing universal health care.

Satanists, on the other hand, have a very easy time opposing it. Okay, okay, not even ALL Satanists, it depends on what sect of Satanism one belongs to.

Taxation is not theft. It is in a Biblical sense, because it is (as stated above) giving to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Furthermore, when money is exchanged for a good or service (in this case, health care), that is not theft.

If you think taxes are akin to pointing a gun to your head, are you against the Army? The post office? The fire department?

In advocating anarchy, it is very hard to use even the Constitution to establish a common ground. Though I would also like to point out how hard it would be to organize an anarchist movement.