RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Sojourners’ Health-Care Truth-Telling Campaign: Now Targeting Advertisers

by Ryan Rodrick Beiler 09-16-2009

Members of Sojourners’ action alert list have received the first three messages of a week-long campaign on truth-telling in the health-care debate. We’ve been targeting some of the most well-known, most egregious examples of media distortions on the issue, including statements by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and today, Bill O’Reilly.

We’re not pushing a particular bill or plan, but we’re targeting the most obvious distortions and outright lies about what health-care reform would and would not do. Our strategy has been to feature the real stories of real people, appealing to the humanity of these broadcasters to consider individuals’ experiences of our broken health-care system when they make statements such as:

“There really isn’t a crisis in health care in this country … In fact, the odds of you being wiped out by a catastrophe or accident once the government gets started running this stuff is greater than if the private sector does – but day-to-day, there’s no health-care crisis in this country.” –The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/18/09

“[If health-care reform passes, we’re] gonna have a government rationing body that tells women with breast cancer, ‘You’re dead.’ It’s a death sentence.” –Sean Hannity, Hannity, 6/19/09

To read the stories that we’re sending them that debunk these kinds of statements and to participate in our campaigns, click on these links: Joshua’s story; Robin’s story.

But we’ve also been hearing skepticism from our readers that even powerful stories of personal tragedy will ever change these pundits’ minds. They’ve suggested that we include their advertisers, as other organizations have successfully done with Glenn Beck. Thanks to research by foxnewsboycott.com, we’ve now got the lists of advertisers, and we’re including some of them on the remaining campaigns. We’re not calling for a boycott as such, but we’re ccing the advertisers to let them know that we’re holding them accountable for sponsoring shows that regularly promote the kind of fear-mongering, distortions, and yes, outright lies that are poisoning this critical debate.

So we didn’t get the list of advertisers in time for today’s e-mail alert to Bill O’Reilly, but we’ve added them now, and are giving those of you who have yet to participate the opportunity to take action now. Here’s the statement by O’Reilly that we’re responding to today:

“If the government takes over health care … and begins to tell people when they can live and when they can die, and the country goes bankrupt in the process … more people will be harmed, including poor people.” –Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor, 8/19/2009

If you want to read more and respond, click here to take action.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web Editor for Sojourners and a photographer whose work can be seen at www.ryanrodrickbeiler.com.

Categories: Activism, Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Knightscrossing
    Ok here it is from the Legislative Resource Office on Capitol Hill....

    There are two primary bills HR 3200 and S 1679 (The Baucus Bill ). Now hold on there... With HR 3200 it was broken up into three Committees, Commerce, Ways and Means and Education. Of which all three committees added some 172 amendments some passed and some did not.

    With S-1679 there are some 556 Amendments currently...

    But wait there is more in the US House... There are some 801 additional and secondary proposed bills and resolutions that are either secondary to 3200 or mention health care, health care reform or medicare. ....

    Trust me ... we are only in the second inning on health care reform......
  • Ashleigh101
    Thanks for the info. :)
  • wood0742
    Message is meant for Ashleigh101, not sure of the right address given
    all the numbers.

    In any case, Check this out - not sure which side of the argument it
    supports on the question of transparency. You decide. Oh, this is
    from the New York Times which tends to be a little liberal but a LOT
    objective. You can get these updates by subscribing at
    newyorktimes.com.
    Tim

    TOP STORY
    TARP Watchdog Doubts All Funds Will Be Repaid


    United States taxpayers will probably never recover all of the
    hundreds of billions of dollars invested to bail out financial firms,
    automakers and homeowners, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector
    general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said on Thursday.

    In prepared testimony for the Senate Banking Committee, he also said
    that the $700 billion program played a "significant role" in reviving
    the financial systems.

    Go to Article from Reuters via The New York Times»
    Go to Article from ABC News»
    Go to Article from Bloomberg News»

    Mr. Barofsky is among the witnesses scheduled to testify this morning
    before the Senate committee on the status of the TARP nearly a year
    after it was passed by Congress.

    Go to Hearing Information from the Senate Banking Committee»
  • wood0742
    We could be mirror images of one another, except one is fervently
    conservative, the other fervently (not liberal) something else, not
    sure what but I do know my view of life and what God intended for me.
    I also think that God planned it for people to have different views,
    so that we can educate one another, and thus, become more tolerant,
    more loving and understanding toward one another (though sometimes I
    admit I do not feel very loving toward the far right of the political
    spectrum or the religious right. At the same time, I know I do not
    have all the right answers, while I feel the other side of the
    spectrum does feel they have all the right answers. They are the ones
    who "talk with God", and "know" what God wants, and it just all
    happens to be what they want for themselves (Jim and Tammy Baker and
    the other far right TV evangelists (Pat Robertson, et.al).

    Well, I can not instruct anyone on religion, and I can not instruct
    anyone on politics or psychology. All I can do is offer my humble
    opinion and an opinion is as an opinion does, to paraphrase a line
    from "Billy Budd".
    Tim
  • wood0742
    Well, I can honestly say that I have been poor, and I do NOT love the
    poor. I also do not love being poor and I worked very hard trying not
    to be poor. I don't think you oppose Obama's health plan because you
    do not love the poor. I think you oppose Obama's health plan because
    it is not advocated by a single republican in the House or Senate, and
    because you are among them in thought (whatever that is) and action.
    Who cares if you "love the poor". I certainly do not. I care that
    you do not feel you owe the society that has made you, somewhat,
    prosperous over the years, a debt of gratitude and that you feel that
    God's admonishment to help the poor, the widows, the orphans, and the
    poor-in-spirit. IT has nothing to do with "love". It has to do with
    social responsibility, which the Republicans never seem to understand.

    The Obama health plan is not just to help the poor. It is to help you
    when you come up with a grave illness and your insurance company finds
    an excuse to refuse to pay or, to end your health care with no valid
    explanation. Can't you understand the difference?

    Every penny this government, and every government spends, whether it
    be for guns or butter, will, eventually, have to be borne by our
    children, just as we have borne the debts of our forebears, and they
    the debts of their forebears. The only thing that is really important
    is that we leave our children a better world that what we had to live
    in. And I think Obama's health plan will do that.

    You say your mom would have been better off if she could have kept her
    old health insurance. So would my wife (who was also a teacher and
    will lose her HC at 65, even though she will not be eligible for
    Medicare until 66 and 10 months. No health insurance pays 100% of all
    medical bills. So I doubt that you mom is any worse off than she was
    before, and I'll bet she is paying less for her healthcare than
    before, too. I know that my wife will be when she turns 66+10 months.

    Yes, you do have a choice between Medicare and the private sector. It
    might cost a bit more (like $15,000), and they might drop you if you
    get sick or they bring up something that you forgot to tell them. But
    there certainly a choice. My brother and sister-in-law were staunch
    conservatives, strictly against any charity, social security, unions,
    and almost anything that reeked of "socialism" to them. Yet, my
    brother-in-law waited until he was covered by Medicare to get two hip
    replacements on the "public dole" and their daughter has spent more
    time on welfare than off it. These are the kind of people who voted
    against Obama because of his "public universal health-care plan".

    Tim
  • wood0742
    So, Ashleigh, do you really think we would have been better off with
    that republican guy (whose name I can't, blissfully, remember) whose
    only real claim to fame is once having almost burned up a whole
    squadron of Jets on a carrier in Vietnam by pulling some stupid
    unauthorized act by starting his engines while fuel was all over the
    deck and starting a fire that cost people their lives; then, getting
    shot down and captured for seven years when he never tried to escape
    even once? How he got the status of "hero" is anybody's guess. He
    was a pilot who did not have a single "kill" to his record, while
    accomplishing all the aforementioned. And Sarah Palin, whose only
    claim to fame is the bridge to nowhere, the firing of public servants
    because the criticized her, and finally, being drummed out of the
    Alaska Governors office by fears of being prosecuted for severe
    infractions of the law??? Whoever that republican guy was would have
    gone down the same track as Obama, only you would have liked it better
    because you are right wing republican, because there was no other
    choice, and you know it. I do not enjoy pointing out the hard facts
    to you, but it seems there is no other choice to your arguments. You
    talk about Obama's "transparency", but what do you say when we only
    found out, through leaks, about the phone taps, the internet data
    mining, the virtual suspension of habeas corpus by George Bush the
    Republican nominee also supported. The totally unwarranted war in
    Iraq, that he also supported and made huge excuses for. I could no
    more have voted for him than I could have voted for Hitler. They wore
    the same uniform, in my eyes.\

    If you argue that Bush gave the "common" people a $600 tax refund,
    don't forget, he gave the rich a 6 million dollar tax refund, and the
    super-rich a 600 million tax refund. Didn't you hear anything that
    Kerry said? If you recall, Bush did not even bother to refute it
    because he knew who would vote for him from the very beginning - those
    he would make richer, like himself and his dad. The Yale Elis - The
    super secret Skull and Bones Fraternity. Bush and this last
    Republican nominee, and Bush's father before him, were all of the same
    cast and, notice, in each Bush administration, there was a big
    financial crisis - Jeb Bush even sat on the boards of the most
    offensive savings and loan company. How can you put your trust in
    crooks like these??? Who did both Iraq wars benefit? Only the very
    rich.

    Clinton came out of his eight-year tenure with a 512 Billion dollar
    surplus which Bush promptly squandered giving financial aid to the
    very rich in less that 8 months. Then came the Iraqi war and the
    deficits piled up like crazy. Can't you see who and what is trying to
    ruin this country's economy? See who profits when there is a
    depression?

    Well, I guess I sound like I am on a soap box trying to smear the
    Republican Party. Maybe I am. But, in my opinion they deserve it.
    Eisenhower was the last Republican President that had the best
    interests of the entire country at heart, and he was ruled by too many
    super conservatives to be effective at the initiatives he tried to put
    in place.

    Oh well, I feel I am talking to myself, here, so I had best just stop,
    for now.\
    Tim
  • wood0742
    Ashleigh, Your arguments are always so convincing, primafacie. But
    let me try to answer them one-by-one, and that will,perhaps, explain
    to you why I think the way I do.

    You said, and I paraphrase, in response to me referring to rationing
    of healthcare: "my reasoning is the fact that govt. can't provide
    every doctor recommended treatment for patients because of the
    millions involved. It's common sense that they could not afford it."
    My answer to this is twofold. First, you labor under the unfounded
    conclusion that Obama's bill would provide "free care". Never once
    has he alluded to the word "free". It may end up costing us even more
    than we now pay for health insurance. Also, Obama's bill has said that
    everyone must have health insurance (of their own choosing), or pay
    the Gvt a premium for it (and I am sure it would be based on income of
    the working poor, and not apply to those already receiving "free":
    medial care through their respective state government's Medicaid.
    Obama's insurance is primarily for those who can not get medical care
    any other way than through Gvt help - and it would not be free, but be
    "affordable", and I read that as "based on income". Why anyone would
    want to twist it and say it will be doled out for no cost is totally
    beyond me. Second: as far as "rationing health care", I fully expect
    that the insurance the government will "sell" will fully evaluate the
    recommended procedures and determine if they are elective, or
    necessary to sustain life or the quality of life before agreeing to
    ante-up for the doctor's exorbitant fees. And, be real, if you think
    that current health care insurers do not "ration" healthcare based on
    the same premises (unless, of course, it is on a senator, congressman,
    or president) then you are only fooling yourself. I have had several
    major life-threatening illnesses that required emergency surgery, or
    other treatment, and my BCBS High Option health care policy required
    "proof", and it was not allowed until they had approved the surgery.
    I could tell you stories just like the stories you told me about the
    denied procedures, but, I doubt (nicely) that you would prefer to
    believe them. Now, I know a negative and a negative is a plus only in
    the world of mathematics, but this is just to say that the one you
    describe already exists in OUR country with OUR insurance companies.
    If you think there are not lifetime limits - for yearly costs, and
    limits on the procedures current insurance companies will allow, based
    on age, sex, race, etc., then you are, again fooling yourself, or
    rationalizing to make everything fit into your preconceived notions.
    Have you ever read the fine print of your own health insurance
    policy - what it covers, what it does not cover, what you must do
    before being admitted to a hospital, etc., etc., etc. You just may be
    in the same situation as our Canadian friend and not be aware of it.
    Remember, the Obama plan DOES NOT rule out third party insurance. You
    still have access to private insurance if you want it (and, I can
    assure you, the Senate, House, and President will have their private
    insurance). In no place, does it deny that, at least, so far - who
    knows what the Senate/House will mess up before it is passed, which I
    strongly believe it will be...it is so far past due and has the
    potential to be just as wonderful as Social Security and Medicare. If
    you really want to complain about something the current administration
    is doing, complain about the third extension of Unemployment
    Benefits...many people make more from that than they did from work
    (where they had no insurance, anyway, and have no incentive to seek
    employment before their "paid vacations" expire. That is not to
    detract from those honestly seeking work, BTW, but with all that they
    become eligible for on unemployment, food stamps, free Medicaid, the
    money they receive, they are probably better off than when they were
    working. I remember, as a child in Birmingham, many people bragged
    about how much they made on unemployment and all the free time they
    had. I am, for some reason, proud to say that I never had a day's
    unemployment compensation.

    Your lack of trust in the ultimate good of mankind is well placed.
    But how about the ultimate good of God? God does not always want what
    man wants, and who are we to question his methods (as he scolded Job)?
    How do we know what God wants? We tend to judge what God wants by what
    we want, what is "good" by what we think is good (usually anything
    that materially, or emotionally, benefits us. And who are we to judge
    what God wants? The imperfection of mankind, placed somewhat below the
    angels, means that, for the most part, we are dumb! Dumb! Dumb!, when
    it comes to knowing what God wants, and yes, we decide what God should
    want based on what we THINK is good, while having no idea what God's
    ultimate plan is or how He will achieve it.

    Faith in God, and the certainty that all will happen as "He", wishes,
    not as we wish, is the only course for Christians to take in this
    world in which we are left uncertain so that we can practice our
    "faith" until it is perfect.

    All that you have said rings a bell that tells me this is what you
    truly believe. I shall always defend your right to believe and speak
    as you see fit, and never wish to hurt a fiber of your being for what
    you believe and espouse. Likewise, I have my beliefs and prejudices,
    and yes, in some respects, bigotry. But may God forgive me for the
    mistakes I make and strive to educate me in the "true" meaning and
    direction of righteousness, as he leads us all.

    I promise to respond to your previous three messages ASAP. I read
    them last night but was too tired, as it was late, to respond. As
    always, your ideas are crystal clear and well stated. I enjoy our
    repartee very much, and hope that it can branch out into other areas
    where religion and politics have a venue.
    Tim
  • Knightscrossing
    Hi Ashleigh101!

    Its not about being concerned that I am crossed with. Its about spouting unfounded opinions that people spout out as fact causing grief that I take issue with, like Glen Beck and his minions. Ok maybe that is not you but be careful and as I tell my friends, do not take the opinions of others and let them become your opinion without any common frame of reference or basis in fact. Anyway, before you jump and get yourself all worked up I recommend if your Catholic to contact your States Catholic Conference or visit the USCCB website and see what they have to say. Contact your Congressional Offices they too will tell you what is really going on. Pay little attention to the Becks, Hannity's Limbaugh's and the Air America crowd they all have their own special interest and non of it is worth anything good..

    As far as the Baucus Bill goes and which is right now under rewrite, it was pretty much reality and a honest proposal, but as they say, that dog will not fly...so his committee is now rewriting as expected.

    The Mark Up session is the process by which congressional committees and subcommittees debate, amend, and rewrite proposed legislation. Right now we are still in the debating part...

    No one right now knows really what the final draft will look like and until that happens stay alert and informed but not anxious.. yet anyway..

    But remember do your own fact checking and use the qualified resources available to you ...
  • Ashleigh101
    "I find it hard to believe that you really think health-care would be "rationed" if this health care plan passes. What is your reasoning? What is your basis? No country has ever "rationed" healthcare, not
    even communist China, or the old Soviet Union. Where do people get these ideas? It mystifies me."

    Mainly my reasoning and basis is the fact that the govt. can't possibly provide every necessary and/or recommended treatment, care, etc. for patients if they are going to cover these millions of patients. It's kind of a common sense thing. How can they possibly afford it?

    But, yes, there are countries who have and do "ration" health care. And it could also happen here.

    I want to share with you one story, and there are others I will share later. This one is of a man named Bill Murray, a Canadian, who was denied hip surgery because he was too old.

    And in Canada, people are not allowed to get private care... period. Their ONLY option is govt. care. That is why a lot of Canadians, who can afford it, come to America where they can get faster care or they can get care that has been denied them in Canada.

    So, Bill Murray... he was only 57, and his doctor advised hip surgery, but... the govt. denied it based on his age. Thus, he paid for the surgery out of pocket.

    Then, his other hip had problems. Again, his doctor recommended hip surgery. Again, he was denied by the govt. And this time... they would not allow him to pay out of pocket. WOULD NOT ALLOW. It's just truly unbelievable.

    Here are some links to this story:

    Health Care Laws Challenged in Alberta Courts "
    http://www.cimca.ca/newsletter/issue04_05.html

    "Too Old for Hip Surgery"
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661...

    That is just one story. There are more.

    Now, I want you to take a look at this article from "The Vancouver Sun."

    Here's the headline: "Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper."

    Here's a quote: "According to the leaked document, Vancouver Coastal — which oversees the budget for Vancouver General and St. Paul’s hospitals, among other health-care facilities — is looking to close nearly a quarter of its operating rooms starting in September and to cut 6,250 surgeries, including 24 per cent of cases scheduled from September to March and 10 per cent of all medically necessary elective procedures this fiscal year."

    Here's the link: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id...

    One last thing that I want to bring to your attention to.

    Robert Pearlman. He works for the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs. Well, in 1997, a book called "Your Life, Your Choices" was published for veterans. It's basically an end-of-life book. Under Bush, it was suspended. Under Obama, it has been rescinded.

    I read the whole thing (a PDF of it is available online). A lot wasn't too bad but it had several questionaries that strongly suggested that these veterans, when old, were a burden on their families. There's one thing where they basically are answering questions to decide whether their life is worth living. Well, I think it says whether it is "not worth living."

    It basically has this... you're-a-burden-because-you-are-old-so-hurry-up-and-die message to it, which is why Bush suspended it.

    Okay, so this guy Pearlman. He wrote it.

    Now, he works for the govt., and I want you to read this. This is word-for-word copied from his biography at the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs website:
    http://www.ethics.va.gov/about/staff/pearlman.asp

    "His interests and expertise pertain to empirical research in clinical ethics (especially end-of-life care) and organizational ethics. His research has explored euthanasia, the role of quality of life in decision-making, the validity of life-sustaining treatment preferences, medical futility, advance care planning, physician-assisted suicide, and relief of patient suffering."

    Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the "validity" of life-sustaining treament, etc.

    It mystifies you that people think care will be rationed, but to be honest, it mystifies me that people would believe that all persons in government would value the life of every individual and have all of our best interests in mind. Remember... we are a nation that has aborted millions upon millions of unborn children. We are a nation in which many employers don't hire older people due to their age. We are a nation in which youth and beauty is idolized.

    So, to put our blind faith in sinful man... people who will be making OUR life and death decisions (and it won't be our doctors making these decisions... ultimately, it will be the govt. who will decide whether they will pay for whatever the doctor has recommended)... and to assume that they will be willing or able to spend the thousands or millions it might take for my surgery or your treatment, esp. if you are older or I am disabled (just scenarios)... well, I think that that is a far more unbelievable thing that rationing is.

    I'll try to provide more stories and examples later. Trust me, there are plenty.
  • Ashleigh101
    I don't think it is right for either of them to make rationing decisions.

    But I read a story of a doctor whose patient had been denied a treatment he wanted to give her. So, he picked up the phone, called the insurace co., and spoke directly to them (whoever it was that made such decisions), and advocated on her behalf, and they covered the treatment as a result.

    He said that if it were government that he were to have to contact, there'd be no way that would've happened. Instead of getting a manager/CEO, he would've heard "All lines are busy... please call back another time" or something similar.

    Have you ever been unemployed and tried to call the unemployment office? I have.. and let me tell you... it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to get anyone. I once literally spent almost the entire day calling, and I never could get a live person and had to try another day.

    Now, a doctor won't have that kind of time. And once he does get a real person, there's little likelihood that he'll be able to speak to whomever would approve of the treatment, esp. since it will likely be a "one size fits all" plan and likely there will not be "exceptions" made for people.

    So, I don't think it's right for either insurance cos. or govt. to "ration" care. It should be the doctor's and patient's decisions. But, I think if it's govt. insurance, the doctor will have no luck in persuading the govt. insurance to cover something it might not cover, whereas he very likely could persuade and insist that the private insurance does.
  • Ashleigh101
    Thanks for the reply. I do realize that everything right now is just a proposal. Nothing, as of yet, has been voted on or passed. From what I understand (read it somewhere... can't remember where), they are working on "synthesizing" the bills, although like I said, I only know of the two and I believe that is all that the media has informed us on... HR 3200 and the Senate bill (Baucus bill).

    I don't think though that people are doing an injustice by being concerned about what's in the currently proposed bills, even though they are a work in progress. If we keep in mind that our govt. works for us... then we ought to be completely informed on what is going on, what is being discussed, etc. And Obama himself promised "unprecedented transparency" with is administration.

    Although it does cause me a lot of anxiety. Like the Baucus bill for instance... some of the things in that one. But maybe it won't even make it to a vote? So, I see your point about "not sweating" until the mark up. By "mark up," do you mean vote? I mean... once a vote occurs, is there much we, the People, can do at that point?

    See, I'm thinking that if we didn't follow and keep up on things as they are in progress... we'd very possibly find ourselves blindsided when something does pass, and then the anger would really be bad!

    But then I don't fully understand all the workings of Capitol Hill and need to learn more, but I'm definitely interested on what the other three bills are, what's in them, and who wrote them.
  • Knightscrossing
    What I have done is contact my Congressional Office since I am working on social justice issues and have asked for a complete tally of all bills both House and Senate with all the amendments. I am sure I will hear in a day or two. These are my sources...:-)

    Understand how the Hill works while these are "Bills" they are nothing more than proposed legislation and as in most notable legislation they will go through major rewrites before they go to mark up and then onto the floor for a vote. Yes note the bill is one thing but understand that its a work in progress and actually meaningless at the moment. Matter of fact I would not sweat until the mark up and then I would go to war if need be.

    Right now both conservatives and liberals are doing a great injustice to the America public by throwing the bull around and this needs to stop. Most of the times when a poster notes a piece of proposed legislation that is in draft they are showing their partisanship ... So as far as I am concerned at this time there is really NO LEGISLATION. Yes that does not mean you ingore the bill and not work the hill rats but I would not get overwhelmed either. So I never refer to a bill until its out of committee and out of markup...

    I will post all the details I get, when I get them...

    Peace!
  • Ashleigh101
    No time right now to reply intelligently and thoughfully to your points, but I appreciate your kind comments.

    I am enjoying talking about this with you, and glad you can accept the things I've said even though you may not understand where I am coming from. :)

    I am spending a little bit too much time here though. I'm going to try to cut back, but I do want to reply to more of your comments. Will try tomorrow.
  • Ashleigh101
    Tim, you said: "Why is it that you seem to think God does not want us to care and provide for the very least among us?"

    I think there is a grave misunderstanding by those who advocate Obama's health care plan. There is a misunderstanding that those who oppose it do so because they are selfish or unloving. In fact, I've been told by others here that I don't love the poor. If I did, I'd be for the plan.

    But this plan is much, much more than just helping the poor. In other nations that have govt. controlled health care, there is evidence/proof that people have suffered as a result. People have even died due to not being able to see a doctor.

    Also, it is not good for anyone to be burdened by taxes. We've got the stimulus, next the health care bill, and soon, we will be so taxed, that we will be heavy-laden and burdened.

    And I find it very unloving for us to be spending money now that our children and grandchildren will one day have to pay.

    But also, there is just so much in this plan, nothing settled on yet, though, but it is a massive govt. intervention. And I truly do not believe for one moment that everyone is going to have equal access to quality care.

    There will have to be cuts made somewhere... probably Medicare. The Baucus bill has cuts made to Medicare. Like you, my parents also just started on Medicare.

    My mother pays $96 dollars right now, BUT she pays an additional $106 for a supplement PLUS another $35 for prescription drugs. That comes to about $235 dollars!! That's pretty expensive for someone receiving "free" govt. health care! And it doesn't include dental or vision.

    So, yes, it's "good" but that's because of the supplements. And that's because if she didn't have Medicare, she'd be worse off.

    But think about it... when you turn 65, Medicare and its supplements are your only option. Her health care that she had before, which was WONDERFUL (through her employer), ended at age 65. She'd be better off really if there was no Medicare and she could've kept her other insurance.

    But, because of Medicare, people at age 65 take the Medicare (unless they are wealthy and can afford their own? I'm not sure though if they are "allowed" to?) because its their only affordable option.

    So, you really have no choice once you are 65. It's Medicare or nothing. So, of course you are going to love it. It's far better than nothing. But how good is it really when you have to pay for supplements and when many doctors won't take it?

    There are a lot of people on Medicare that don't have supplements and can't see doctors, or at least their choice of doctors, because many doctors don't take Medicare patients. And, supposedly, Medicare is close to bankruptcy.

    So, here's a govt. program... close to bankruptcy, it's not truly "free," it costs doctors and hospitals money (they lose money), and it certainly does not cover everything or 100% of anything.

    What makes us think that the govt. will be able to afford, or do better, at health care for all of us??

    I would rather see us help people obtain good jobs in which they can then pay for good health insurance. Don't you think that'd be so much more wonderful for them? And help employers so that they can afford to provide insurance to their employees. Provide them with things like tax breaks, etc.

    Obama's solution seems to be... give the poor free health care. Well, okay... but they will still be poor. And it won't address or solve all the problems with our health care industry.

    Let's help people get the jobs they need so that they can then buy better health care (better than the govt. plan that is being proposed). And meanwhile, while they don't have care, let's make sure they qualify for Medicaid.

    I know that's not a "simple" solution, and there still needs to be reform in health care. But I think there are ways to reform that are better than what Obama is proposing (and I truly don't believe his motives for this are "pure").

    For instance, take COBRA. COBRA is very expensive. I once lost my job and qualified for COBRA but instead I bought my own plan at a much, much cheaper rate. Well, why don't we start there? Let's bring down the cost of COBRA so people can afford it.

    And there is health care for the poor-- Medicaid. Now, supposedly some poor don't qualify. Well, why not reform Medicaid so that we make sure the truly poor do qualify?

    And then let's deal with what is at the root of the issue... health care costs. Premiums go up because health care costs go up (along with malpractice suits).

    There is good insurance out there, and I would hate to see it replaced with a "one size fits all" govt. insurance plan that I do not believe will be as good as what is out there with private insurers.

    And everyone not only deserves access to health care, but they deserve GOOD health care.

    Do you know that Congress will have their own health care (not the govt. plan)? I'll try to find it, but in the health bill (HR3200), it even says this. Why do you think that is?? Think about it.

    But, back to your question. The Bible says that we are to take care of the poor. Jesus' heart is for the poor. And he told us, "the poor you will always have with you."

    But I don't believe that the current govt. plans are truly looking out for the poor. If Obama was truly looking out for the poor, he wouldn't mandate that ALL of us "have" to have health care (or be fined). And he'd reform Medicaid, rather than just create a govt. plan to compete with the private plans. And there are ways to reform the problems with pre-existing conditions.

    This is a man who is bailing out banks, fired a CEO, and surely, he can bring reform to private insurance companies, the way he has to other companies. But instead, he's creating a whole other plan. Why?

    I do not believe this plan is about the poor. In fact, today I was at an "Employment Development" office (a govt. place where unemployed can go to look for jobs) because I am looking for another job.

    And there was a man next to me talking with a worker there. He's been looking for work for a year and cannot find anything, and he felt very frustrated at how Obmaa is pushing health care. Because meanwhile, he's unemployed, and things in the job market are not looking up.

    He said something along the lines of... "Why are they going to fine us if we don't have health care? We don't even have jobs or and income! How are we going to pay for those fines?"

    The lady, meanwhile, mentioned how her sister just got notice today that she is being laid off.

    So, I just do not believe this plan is about the poor. There is too much in it that goes above and beyond that, and I believe Obama focuses on that in order to get support for it, and to cause those who are against it to feel "guilty" for being "unloving" towards the poor.

    Proving health care to the poor also isn't giving them an "equal" shot at life. You mention the "equality" that this will provide for them. But, it will not give them equality. And in fact, the Bible is clear... there will never be "equality" among people, with regards to life's circumstances, on this earth.

    But take a woman who lives in the projects, lives on welfare and food stamps, and has no health insurance. Well, for one, she qualifies for Medicaid. But, let's say she doesn't. So, we give her health care. Does that help her move out of the projects? Does that get her off welfare? Does it provide the training and education she needs for a job? Does it feed her and her children? Does she have equal access to the schools and the resorts and the shops that the rich have access to?

    Yes, it provides her with health care... she needs that (but she already has Medicaid), but it doesn't free her from her poverty. And we can't view this health care bill as something that is going to eradicate poverty and provide "equality."

    And it could even cause her to become more and more dependent on govt. Many people are stuck in the welfare system and have become dependent on it. And "free" health care like this can actually end up causing even more dependecy on govt. for these people.

    Now, consider something. Many "conservatives" who are against this govt. health care proposal are Christians. Christians who love others, who love the Lord, who help others, who serve in their communities, who are missionaries, pastors, mothers, fathers, etc.

    Do you truly think that these people do not want to help the poor? Or that they do not care for the poor? Or is there perhaps truth to what I am saying... that there is more to this govt. plan than "meets the eye." That it's not just about "helping the poor," but about much more.

    I mean, truly consider that. Are you willing to say that all those Christians (most Christians are Republican, you know) are unloving?

    I've got to get, but just one last thing... keep in mind that sadly, in this world we live in, there will always be wars, crime, injustice, poverty, and evil. We are to fight it as best we can with the power of God, but it will never be an "equal" world or a peaceful one or one where all get along. That will only happen after Jesus returns and we are with him in Heaven. That is when the "lion will lie down with the lamb" and all will be made new and there will be no more of all these earthly problems and sufferings.
  • Ashleigh101
    What exactly are you referring to when you reference "5 bills pending with 146 amendments?" There appear to currently be only 2 bills being discussed... HR 3200 and the Baucus Bill. What are the other 3? Maybe the media has failed to report on these because I have not heard of them?

    I'm not saying that there aren't 5. Who knows... everyone, even Congress, seems to be pretty confused over it all. But I have only heard of the 2, so could you please provide your source so I can read about the 5 that you mention, and the "146 amendments?"

    It's not a "smokescreen," however, to refer to these bills. And what you meant about the poster showing his "true colors" for mentioning these bills is beyond me! But these ARE the bills being looked at by Congress, and some version of them is what they will pass if they decide to pass a bill. Unless Obama decides to start over, which I highly doubt he'd do anything like that.
  • Ashleigh101
    Well, I think that most people can agree that both the war and the stimulus have cost a whole lot of money. But I am not sure it does any good to address the current stimulus by comparing it to the war, when Bush is no longer President, and the spending on it is in the past. Well, now there is the Afghanistan War, and I am really not well-informed on that and am confused about it.

    But, regardless, I think we just have to look at the stimulus and some of the promises Obama made. He promised "unprecedented" transparency, for instance. So, let me ask you, can you tell me how the stimulus has been spent? Who has gotten what money, and how have they spent it? Has he really been "transparent?"

    I tried researching it on the internet and had a very hard time finding anything showing exactly what has been spent and how. Most of what I did find was given at conservative sites, but I did not want to post those here because it seems that things are often dismissed here if conservative sites/media are the source.

    So, I did find something recent from CBS News. Now, just take the time to read this, and then let me know what you think.

    "Tiny Airports Get Big Cut of Stimulus Cash: Small, Rural Airports Get Big Payouts While Safety Violations at Major National Airports Get Little Attention"
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/13/eveni...

    Before you read it, keep in mind the whole purpose for this stimulus. And remember also that it comes from taxpayer's dollars and it's borrowed money that will be paid back mostly by future generations (probably through their taxes). Also, remember the urgency with which it was passed in which we were told that if it didn't pass "NOW," it would be a catastophe!

    We never had any money for the stimulus to begin with, but we were told that it would be the only thing that could get us out of the recession. It was supposed to create a whole lot of jobs.

    Now, from what I read and the people I talk to, people are still losing jobs left and right, and unemployment is rising. In fact, this Wed. there will be a vote for a third extension of unemployment benefits because thousands who have been receiving unemployment, for a whole year now, still cannot find jobs.

    Okay, so back to this article. It's CBS reporting... so this is liberal media. And I read about this elsewhere also (can't remember where). But millions of stimulus funds have gone to small, little airports... airports that very, very few people use.

    Here's a quote: "In Alaska, $15 million dollars went to build a bigger, better airport for the town of Ouizinkie - population just 165. That's roughly $90,000 dollars per resident."

    Now, how many jobs do you think that created?? There's only 165 people in the town.

    Now, you might reason that... well, these small airports need to be safe and nice just as much as big airports. And I'd wholeheartedly agree. However, the purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs. Jobs. Not safe airports.

    Here's another quote: "...tiny Purdue University Airport got $800,000 to help keep animals off the runway. That's even though they've reported just one incident: a plane ran over a skunk in 1996. ... nobody would tell us how many unemployed workers, if any, were hired to pave the Flying Club's runway. The whole job took just five days."

    Now, how many jobs do you think were created for this job that took only 5 days?

    Here another article on the small airports receiving millions in stimulus money.

    "FAA Criticized Over Stimulus Projects," Wall Street Journal
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125003636203424...

    But this one might be the worst of all:

    "FAA Approves Plan to Give Stimulus Funds to Airport Named After Murtha," The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

    Have you heard of this at all?

    More than $150 million of TAXPAYER money had previously gone to this airport ... but get this... this airport has about 6 arriving and departing flights per day. The $150 was spent on a new runway, new tarmac, and a state of the art radar tower (that has not even been used since it was built in '04).

    But, this airport is not only named after John Murtha, but he built it and he uses it to commute to D.C. Not only that, but only 30 people per day use it... to commute to D.C.

    Read this for more details: "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574425042055550178.html"

    And this: "Remote Murtha airport lands big bucks from Washington"
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/23/murtha.a...

    And this one is really good (and it says that there are only 20 passengers per day at the Murtha airport), and surprisingly, it's an ABC news report:

    "U.S. Taxpayers Fund Empty 'Airports to Nowhere:
    Millions in Stimulus Funds Get Diverted to Empty but Expensive Airports"
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/american-taxpaye...

    Now remember Palin's "Bridge to Nowhere" and the huge outcry it caused in the media? Have you seen a huge outcry about this airport, or any of the others?

    And remember the purpose of the stimulus. Don't lose sight of that. The purpose was job creations to help us get out of the recession, and we were told if it didn't happen NOW, it'd be a catastrophe.

    So... to conclude... the stimulus is a massive, massive amount of borrowed money... very few jobs have been created so far, unemployment is still rising, and here we have money being spent on tiny airports... gotta wonder how that is creating jobs and why it was so urgent... because this was all about urgency and creating jobs.

    And where is the transparency?

    So, I realize that you are supportive of Obama, but I would just encourage you to do more research, to ask questions about some of the things you hear, and to really look into these things.

    Read the bills (HR3200 and Baucus bill are the main ones right now), do some research on other nation's govt. controlled health care, read the Constitution, and also consider the Bible... do you really want this much govt. control in your life?

    Why, as Christians, do we desire so much govt. control? Doesn't the Bible show that time and time again, ultimately the more govts. have control, the more that people are virtually enslaved by them... enslaved by tax burdens, lack of freedoms, etc.

    Yes, there is a place for govt., and God instituted it while Jesus told us to obey, and we certainly wouldn't want anarchy, but I see a lot of people right now who desire more and more govt. intervention in their lives. And people looking to government, rather than God, in their lives.... believing, falsely, that government can help them with all their problems.

    And I think, one day, if they do get the desired govt. control that they desire, they will regret it. Already, there are people regretting what's already happened (bailouts, stimulus, etc).

    And think about the Biblical calls for us to be "wise," "shrewd," and discerning. Just because someone says something, and says it with charisma and charm, doesn't mean we ought to believe w/o question. Think of the verse, "Charm is deceitful."

    Obama is very charming, very appealing to a frustrated nation weary and burdened by many things... he came on the scene with "Yes, We Can" and all sorts of wonderful promises... but anyone can say anything. It doesn't mean we should just buy it hook, line, and sinker.

    So, I'd just encourage you to really think about all this.
  • jaynesmith
    Doctors will not be government employees under the proposed plan anymore than they are not under Medicare and Medicaid. I am the Office Manger for 6 Primary Care Physicians and insurance companies dictate much more than Medicare and Medicaid about the care they can give and not give to patients.

    I worry that you haven't really thought about what you call untruths. You seem to have all the answers when you don't know all the questions.

    Please keep an open mind.
  • Knightscrossing
    To be honest, your wasting your time writing letters to these guys. They make their money off of controversial positions. Your better off writing these letters to their sponsors and broadcast outlets.

    Secondly to posters like Wood0742. I highly recommend that you do your own research before you parrot others. Presently there are some 5 bills pending with some 146 amendments and if this were a baseball game we are only in the second inning with a long way to go. So noting any of these pending bills is a smoke screen and your showing your true colors.

    Besides we spend some $60 Billion per year on weapon systems that are either obsolute or never make it off the drawing board and this is one of the cuts we should be making to help pay for medical reform.

    On the abortion issue... before you throw stones ask your own insurance company if abortions are covered..... If they do and you don't drop out then look up the term hypocrisy....

    Lastly, this is America and no one should go without health insurance.. Its the human thing to do...
  • wood0742
    Ashleigh101,
    I thank you for telling me I have not offended you, because that was
    never my intention. I agree with you on many things. You are right,
    just because several presidents espoused universal health-care does
    not make it good. I do not think, when you add up the loss of human
    life (much of our youth) and the dollar amount spent on a war that
    was, in my opinion, totally unjustified, is a lower amount than the
    health-care bill. I do not believe that Obama wants to take over, nor
    do I believe that the government is capable of, taking over, the
    health industry. It is far too complicated for burecratic control.
    But it can be regulated by the government, and that part is what I
    espouse in order to reign in the spiraling costs of health-care.

    I agree with you on "cash for clunkers. Although I agree with the
    results, a temporary reprieve for the auto industry (not to mention
    the cash infusorians from the government) I, also, did not use it and
    am perfectly happy with my 1995 Neon w. only about 75K on the
    speedometer and inoperative air conditioning. I hope to fix the A/C
    myself in the near future, ahem! I agree about the :sugar high" for
    the auto industry, too.

    I hope we keep this repartee going, because I, too, find it very
    stimulating to talk with someone of a different opinion who does not,
    necessarily, denigrate my own. I hope to hear from you frequently on
    this subject.
    Tim
  • wood0742
    Ashleigh101,

    Your statement "Some people, though, want more govt. control and want
    govt. controlling what people do, what they buy, what they drive,
    where they live, and on and on. But I don't understand that. To me
    it's slavery... being enslaved to govt... and that is just not God's
    will for us.".

    You are right. God wants us to be a slave for him and to
    "love-every-minute-of-it". Jesus continuously exhorts us that it
    is"not about you". Why is it that you seem to think God does not want
    us to care and provide for the very least among us? That is one of
    the charges Jesus makes, obliquely, for all Christians. "Those who
    care for the very least among you also care for me" (I realize that is
    not an exact quote). Obama, whether he realizes it, or not, is doing
    God's will in trying to ensure that "the very least among us" have an
    equal shot at life and well-being. Where is the wrong in that? I
    pray, Ashleigh101, that your heart, as well as those of so many
    others, soften to the point that you see the good to mankind that
    universal healthcare will provide. It is only a first step toward a
    world, or, at least, a nation, can make to try to ensure that even the
    very least among us has an equal shot at life, prosperity, and
    well-being in our world. Can you imagine the reduction in crime that
    equality may bring? Think of it. A world, or a country, without that
    looks after all its citizens with no prejudice towards any. I think
    that is what God wants us to learn and to practice in our daily lives.
    I think we can agree on may things, if not this one. I remember when
    Nixon, Ford, Regan, and the First bush were in the presidency. I felt
    the same about them as you feel about Obama. Still, we survive.
    Still, the world has not changed in a great way. So, I wonder what
    influence presidents really have. If any, it seems it is only
    temporary. If you want to communicate directly with me, write me at
    wood0742@peoplepc.com.
    Tim
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008