Comments on: Truth-telling and Responsibility in Health Care

By: Truth is Victor (in health reform!) — Learn. Pray. Blog.

Truth is Victor (in health reform!) — Learn. Pray. Blog. — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:12:00 +0000

[...] “…I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up” Sojourners has a great blog post about “Truth Telling in Health Care”. [...]

By: Everything you need to know about U.S. health care reform « alek davis: personal blog

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:56:59 +0000

[...] to Fight Back Rebuttal to the most common lies about the health care reform with supporting data. Truth-telling and Responsibility in Health Care Jim Wallis talks about one important moral principle for the health-care debate: truth-telling. [...]

By: Jim Wallis Has Some Funny Definitions of Moral Obligation | FrontPage Magazine

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:48:18 +0000

[...] also blogs about the need for “truth-telling” in the health care reform debate. Unfortunately, he himself plays fast and loose with the truth. He claims that “in recent weeks, [...]

By: Jim Wallis Has Some Funny Definitions of Moral Obligation « NewsReal Blog

Jim Wallis Has Some Funny Definitions of Moral Obligation « NewsReal Blog — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:42:48 +0000

[...] also blogs about the need for “truth-telling” in the health care reform debate. Unfortunately, he himself plays fast and loose with the truth. He claims that “in recent weeks, [...]

By: lv2rd117

lv2rd117 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:35:15 +0000

New World Order is coming people! Obama is progressing the antichrist system that is gathering a fast pace after the recent world economic upheaval in conjunction with Javier Solana of the European Union, Prince Charles of Wales, Queen Beatrix of Netherlands and Prince Hassan of Jordan.
It is a secret network of people who all know each others world roles and who are acting independently publicly, but are coercing a plan behind the public scene to use their powers of influence to take the world to a new level of world regulation.
You would have thought that the christian community would have discerned this but unfortunately much of the christian community is asleep on this matter. Bible Prophecy Ministries who week in, week out, publish so much information about the coming new world order are silent on this specific matter.

By: lv2rd117

lv2rd117 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:35:15 +0000

By: mlgreen8753

mlgreen8753 — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:47:34 +0000

The summer months affect more than advertising.

By: Jim Wallis, Fascist? « Humane Pursuits

Jim Wallis, Fascist? « Humane Pursuits — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:57:24 +0000

[...] Walter Rauschenbusch, author of Christianity and the Social Crisis, literally reinterpreted all of Christian history in these terms. William Jennings Bryan, despite being a pacifist, said he couldn’t help dreaming of a one-world Christian government. Today, Jim Wallis, a far less astute man than either, swallows pretty much every Progressivist talking point in his religious quest to achieve a “just” society (recent example here). [...]

By: Feminae

Feminae — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:46:13 +0000

Here's a link where you can read the bill – http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H….

By: An Open Letter On Health Care to Conservative Christians in the U.S. - Brian McLaren - God’s Politics Blog

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:14:35 +0000

[...] my friend Jim Wallis recently said so eloquently in his last blog post on health care, we may have honest differences with our fellow Christians on the issue of health care and many [...]

By: Palin Bad for Dialogue - Jim Wallis - God’s Politics Blog

Palin Bad for Dialogue - Jim Wallis - God’s Politics Blog — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:00:26 +0000

[...] Thursday, I wrote about truthtelling and responsibility in the debate over health care, urging an honest and fair debate with good information, not [...]

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:12:44 +0000

First of all, what's the difference between a fine and a fee in this instance? It's purely semantic. The bottom line is that employers that don't provide health insurance would have to pay an extra charge. Why should they?

Second, there is no obligation to provide health insurance to your employees currently. Employers do it because they choose to for many different reasons. Those that do obviously see a benefit in it.

By: God’s Politics: Be Nice » HealthCare 09

God’s Politics: Be Nice » HealthCare 09 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:29:24 +0000

[...] Politics: Be Nice Jim Wallis in his column God’s Politics for the Christian site Sojourners makes a case for rational discussion of healthcare [...]

By: WitnessforPeace

WitnessforPeace — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:39:37 +0000

According to this exerpt, it would end new enrollment in private health insurance:The current version of Obamacare working its way through the House of Representatives is a 1,018-page monstrosity that no lawmaker has actually read, and that they're assuming no citizen will take the time to read either. Fortunately, you only have to wade through to page 16 to find out things aren't exactly as advertised.

Under the section entitled, "Limitation on New Enrollment," it states in black and white: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of Obamacare's enactment.

Plain English: those of you who have private coverage, you can keep it – but you can't change it. And if you decide to leave your current job to start your own business, you won't be able to purchase individual plans from private carriers. Page 16 forbids it.

By: Sojourners, “Truth Telling,” and Talking Points « LewRockwell.com Blog

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:32:15 +0000

[...] the White House Talking Points, however, comes from Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who calls for “truth-telling” in this debate. The Man Who Always Speaks for God declares: Yet in recent weeks, [...]

By: carapace – Not your father’s america » Saturday Agust 8, 2009 – “Believe nothing against another but on good authority; and never report what may hurt another, unless it be a greater hurt to some other to conceal it.” &

Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:43:03 +0000

[...] truth-telling [...]

By: WaveTossed

WaveTossed — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:58:47 +0000

I thought that employers get a 100% tax break for providinig health insurance to their employees. Which would be only just. But maybe they just get a little deduction — which some of the Repubs (and also some Dems) want to take away. Which would result in a tax raise.

By: justintime

justintime — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:56:23 +0000

Thanks for the clarification.

By: BluegrassRiver

BluegrassRiver — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:13:19 +0000

It is not an 8% fine on small business. It is a fee to pay if you do not provide health insurance coverage to the employees in your small business. Talk to a few business owners of 20 or 30 employees and you might find they would love to give up that obligation for 8% instead of what they pay now.

By: WitnessforPeace

WitnessforPeace — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:06:48 +0000

I'm no fan of insurance companies, trust me. But I sense a lot of assumptions behind your defense of haste: you're suspicious of profit, and you see a huge mandate in Obama's electoral vote, among others. Fifty-three percent is hardly an overwhelming popular margin, and even many of those good folks are having second thoughts, as it becomes obvious that the Democrats stand for politics as usual. Their haste is that they know they'll lose a lot of seats 15 months from now, so this plan is to be shoved down our throats ASAP—even though most Congresspersons who vote for it will never take the time to read it! Another moral imperative, Rev. Wallis: read before you sign. To change the livelihoods of a huge proportion of the working people in this company after a debate of only a few months is unwise—so unwise that it, too, should be part of Jim's “moral imperative”
A final assumption, well meaning no doubt, is that complete equality is achievable, and that government as practiced in the US in this very year is the perfect medium to devise Heaven on Earth. A very thoughtful and non-ideological discussion of this is in Miriam Adeny's “Idols of our Time”
I hope you take the time to read her thoughts.