scat, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I heard this interview on MSNBC and when Jim ended it in talking about Jesus healing people and not for profit, the obvious question came to mind. No, Jesus did not do His work for profit. Jim, what about you? Do you sell your "best-selling" books or give them away? Do you charge a fee for speaking engagements or travel to share Christ's teachings for free? Jesus did not charge to deliver the Sermon on the Mount, so I hope you follow those same ethical standards in your delivery of His message as you expect doctors, nurses and all other medical care workers and companies to perform their jobs not for profit.

read your Bible and youll find out that's actually a quote from a guy named Paul in Romans 13

health care will also protect all of us equally, you when you are in need and even the group who has the resource now but may not have if they lose their jobs in the future and then those who do not have the health care now and may prosper and even support those people who have resource now. The reverse argument for free enterprise and no public health care...How about no free public education up to grade 12 too? How come we have that?

amen.

Uhhh, it's called "irony."

"why sometimes the government has to be God's instrument to do good, as Marx once said"


Perhaps not a good talking point considering the millions who died because of the treachery that Marxism brought in the past century .

Health Care reform is a huge issue. It involves insurance, the way health care is delivered, political and religious views, and cost issues. Some important points hav e been brought up in this discussion which has been more civilized than some.
We have seen health costs rise dramatically becuase of bio-technology which has made early detection more attaninable. I beleive that in time medical and insurance costs will come down. New technology is usually expensive and then comes down in cost as it becomes more widely available. Hand claculators started out at about $500, now you can get them at the dollar store. In addition, with health care advancing from treating disease after it has manifested itself to prevention and early detection, the cost will decline. Even today, surgeries that used to require a week or two in the hospital are now often performed in a cliniic and the patient is home for dinner.For these reasons, I think concerns about cost are perhaps overblown.
Insurance in the traditional sense is becoming archaic since it is still mostly about just paying for the treatment of a disease after it has become apparent to the insured. That of course is more expensive than systems that emphasize prevention and early detection. So they have been making a lot of money and don't want to change the system that has made them rich.

Some here argue that the church ( in the sense of all Christians) should be the source of help for those in need. That would be a nice idea, Very Christian, but how many people have to die while we wait for that to happen. My suggestion is that for those who really think that is workable and possible, why not get together and start woirking on such a project. No matter what kind of program we end up with, there will always be someone in need that falls through the cracks. There are people right now waiting for a miracle because they don't have insurance. It can be done. Look at all the Seventh Day Adventist hospitals around the world.

Just one other thought. This isn't just about helping those in need. We are a nation. If a large portion of the population is not healthy, it damages the whole. We are less productive, less creative.

Natcoz, I find your comment to be smug and devoid of moral persuasion. It's a classic ploy to accuse justice activists of not understanding the issues. And that's pure nonsense; we may be just simple church folk making these pleas for righteousness (ie, health coverage for all) but this is actually a simple moral issue. I could just as easily turn the tables on you and accuse you of over-complicating the issue at hand and trying to claim the high ground by offering what you believe is the most sophisticated analysis. We don't need sophisticated analysis right now -- that's too easy and too removed from the heart of the matter. What we need is health care reform... and I for one am not impressed by your efforts to diminish and infantilize those who believe so.

Carried to its conclusion, your argument contends that there should be no government.

In fact, these three neighbors ought not live in close pwoximity because two wil inevitably wish to establish government over the other.

Taxes are being spent on public education, public services like fire & police departments...why are those not a problem? We would never dream of forfeiting people's rights to police protection or education based on their income....health care should be the same. It is a human right, NOT a privilege ....and if it weren't, then Christ Himself would not have been so adamant about...

here's a quote: "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has not even one; and he who has food, let him do the same." (Luke 3:11). Isn't health care even MORE important than a coat?

Who is taking who's property? This is about giving those less fortunate an option to access affordable healthcare. It's giving mercy where it is needed. And if reform doesn't happen, then the general public will pay for it anyway, through rising premiums and taxes due to emergency room visits that cannot be paid for by underinsured. Would you rather they die in the streets? man, money and possessions have really corrupted some people....

You cannot serve God and mammon.

We are already spending money that our grandchildren will have to pay for, whether you realize it or not. If spending will result in better care, preventative medical practices, and human dignity, then the cost is worth it. Besides, how do you know what the end result will be? No one seemed to care about all the reckless spending during the previous administration...but maybe that's because the ones in charge were profiting off of the less fortunate. And now we are definitely paying for THAT.

What does that have to do with anything? The point is, we all have a responsibility to treat each other with respect...Christ said "forgive them for they know not what they do"...doesn't that put us all on the same level?

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I accept that I do not have all the answers. I was not bashing anyones morals, rather responding to the conversation based on Wallis post/interview regarding this debate being about values or morals, more specifically, religious ones. On that point, I believe the Biblical commentary is fairly clear, and as I understand them, the Torah and Koran as well.
I too am wary of government involvement, but I believe the comparison of US and Rome goes only so far...for one thing, we have a say in how our government operates, the laws it makes, the actions it takes. I dont believe the average citizen in Rome could speak out against Caesar (not without fear of punishment) nor could they have any impact on the laws that were made. So is there a way we can work with a flawed system to make postive changes that allows the least of these a chance at wellness? It is my belief that we can and are compelled by the words and actions of Jesus. I believe it IS God's wish/will that those who have much would share with those who have little.

I too am wary of government involvement, but at this point, it seems to be the way to have the greatest positive impact for the most people. I have not seen or heard of a better method of delivery. It would be a joyous thing if the religious communities of our country could rise to the occasion, but I just dont forsee that happening. I am gladdened to see the rise in ecumenical cooperation; that I believe is witness to the in-breaking of the kingdom of God.

In regards to possessions and my comments there; I apologize. Mine is not to judge nor do I have any idea what xfree charitable heart is like. I'm sorry for that.

Paul asked forgiveness.

Is it OK to spend more than you have in the name of doing good? The end result is that someone who lent you money will lose.

Is it OK for our government to spend money now and expect our children and grandchildren to repay? Isn't the greed coming from this generation at the expense of the next?

Pastor Carlos perhaps for your own sake you should consider giving XFree an apology . You realize I am sure that you or XFree have no moral basis for REACHING HEAVEN . That if it was left up to our own works we will all end up in Hell .

So perhaps explaining why your solution would help more people and NOT hurt more in the long run would;d perhaps be a better method ?
You do realize Jesus never spoke to us about joining in with Rome for a health care plan . I am sure if Rome did offer one, many Christians might have a problem with it because of the other policies Rome supported ?

XFree view point of free markets place and less government is seen as aplus in all our lives . As Christians we should be able to respect that view .Just as I totally respect and was leaning towards more government involvement in the solution . But one of the problems that did bother my conscience was perhaps what it could lead to in what has become more culturally acceptable in our culture . To another that conscience could be bothered by a government who takes something from one person and gives it to another . To them that may be stealing .

Good book ondifferent view points is the Book of Romans . I am sure you have read it , perhaps a re do is in order my brother and apply it to others whose conscience is different then yours on these matters ? I myself am totally confused . ;0)

This is absolutely political. The administration is using every angle, including calling on faith groups to advance their political agenda. It looks like Sojourners is falling right into the trap laid out here.

xfree...it sounds like you might read the Bible, perhaps, I dont know, you might even consider yourself a Christian...but for those who do call themselves Christians, the Biblical imperative to do everything possible to ensure the well being of your neighbor is pretty clear. Even if it means that you have fewer goats, or less grain. Consider the early Christian communities as a base example; they held all property in community and no one lacked for anything. The health care reform that is proposed is light years away from such a community, merely pointed in that direction. So which one of your possesions is so very important to you that you are unwilling to part with it in order to help your neighbor who has a sick child?

The Bible does not give us a moral imperative to provide government guaranteed health care. We are given the moral imperative to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and care for the poor and the widowed and orphaned. Those tasks sound like bottom-up processes to me, not things that can be imposed top-down.

"While you are demanding full medical services for all of God's children, please also spell out the tab you are expecting about 60% of God's children to pick up on behalf of the other 40% of God's children."

Yes, we wouldn't want to inconvenience the Cheneys or the Bush family. Although it's a bit hard to feel sorry for them if their taxes go up a bit. If you're talking about raising taxes on the middle class, then that's a different story. I don't have a personal, vested interest in health care reform, but then the Good Samaritan didn't have a vested interest in helping an unknown victim on the side of the road. I understand that God and government are not the same; on the other hand it would rob God of His providence and omnipotent power to say that He cannot use a tool such as government to further His justice and righteousness. My view of Scripture is that Jesus had less concern about comforting the comfortable then he did about shalom to the poor, be it through providing for their daily bread or His being the Bread of Life.