If some can't afford the Congress plan, then subsidize (help) those people. I am guessing it would be cheaper than revamping the entire healthcare industry. Did you know that under the Baucus plan as we would be paying 10 years of premiums for 5 years of coverage? The first 5 years is paying upfront for the final 5 years. Does anyone really think they will save that money and not spend it on something else? I doubt it. How crazy will it get?

If some can't afford the Congress plan, then subsidize (help) those people. I am guessing it would be cheaper than revamping the entire healthcare industry. Did you know that under the Baucus plan as we would be paying 10 years of premiums for 5 years of coverage? The first 5 years is paying upfront for the final 5 years. Does anyone really think they will save that money and not spend it on something else? I doubt it. How crazy will it get?

Sorry–side-stepping the question does not answer the question. So I'll ask again:

“How would you suggest health care be fixed without government interaction? What is your alternative solution?”

Can we afford it? I don't know. The thing is, we can't afford not doing anything about it either. Health care costs are astronomical, and will only get worse if we don't do anything about it. And this is what we are saddling our children with, knowing full well that costs are only going to escalate. So we are playing with their freedom either way.
And yet, since we are apparently not paying taxes to pay for those costs, we somehow think we don't have to pay for it. Either way, we pay.

So what is an alternative solution? The only that I have heard proposed are related to market forces. Market forces don't work in an industry where “consumers” have little option and in many cases no time to do comparison shopping. If you are told you need a quadruple bipass immediately, you aren't going to say, “wait, let me go check Walmart to see if they offer a better price.”

Insurance companies aren't likely to police their own behavior without proper impetus to do so–they are, and I can't stress this enough–a BUSINESS. And as will all businesses, their modus operandi is to make a PROFIT. And that is part of the problem right there. How can something as important and necessary to every man, woman, and child be profit-based?

So, if market forces won't bring the changes in the insurance company, where will that impetus come from?

And what less freedom? What do citizens of those nations not have the freedom to do? Canucklehead–are you being repressed?

It is laughable to conclude that because I can vote in a national election that I am connected to the government in a shared role. In fact, that's exactly the illusion the government would like you to have, because it gives you the feeling of involvement without actually being able to do anything.

The government is not ony a tool, it is us. We are not talking about a monarchy where all the power resides in one or a handful of people. We live in a democratic republic that we are all a part of and share the power. We also share the responsibility to use that power wisely. How we use that power tells the truth about us.

If God's love is powerful enough to change the world, why does it need the government to do the work of the Kingdom? The government only has its comparative advantage in violent coercion to do what it needs to do. Why compromise the gospel message of peace by joining forces with the kingdom of the world?

Not that you specifically have this attitude, but it seems that “progressive” Christians who are satisfied with government “solutions” simply can't abide that other Christians aren't doing the work of the Kingdom, and so we must make them (and all the non-Christians around them) do so by use of force. So much for “follow me.” Say hello to, “Do it or die!”

Fire departments are run by local governments, who have no “centralized power.” Local governments also run police departments and build public parks. “Fear of government” is shorthand for “fear of centralized power with no recourse for those who feel oppressed by its tyranny.” And lest you object that many laws are imposed for the good of its citizens, an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.

Check out “Boundaries of Order” by Butler Shaffer, which is available online for free, or you can purchase it. Or perhaps “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg. Or, for that matter, 1984 by George Orwell.

In the good old days, fire brigades were funded by insurance companies. If your property caught fire, your insurance company's fire brigade came to put it out. If you weren't insured, well too bad – presumably you had made a rational decision to not buy insurance and spend the money on something else. Of course, it meant that fully trained brigades would stand by and watch someone else's property burn down but if no-one is paying the bill…

Why is it that we accept government control of fire brigades? Won't the government intervene, and stop the brigade spending their time and money on trying to save an old building that isn't worth much? Maybe there are 'destruction panels' out there that decide which houses will be saved and which will be left to burn?

And why should steal money (ie. taxes) from those well prepared to divert to saving homes where the owners couldn't really be bothered?

Sorry, I'm really trying to understand this whole fear of government thing…

Now I don't mean to be judgmental, but I'm pretty sure that everyone in the rows ahead of us could spare a few more pennies, or dollars, or whatever… Maybe not, but my hunch is, given the demographic of our church, that wasn't a “widows mite” offering.

If every sincere Christian would actually give 10%, and were involved in ministry,rather than having the attitude that ministry is for the “ministers” (FT church workers), I'd say the Church would largely be meeting the need that so many believe the government should be doing.

The one exception is my friend who moved here from Canada years ago and is now an American citizen. She's the one who's always glued to Fox News. She says that her brother-in-law has been on a waiting list for some sort of heart procedure for a long time there and I do believe her. If there are problems with the Canadian system, I'm sure we could address them here, however, and ours doesn't have to look exactly the same.

I think the problem she doesn't see is that the same thing happens here every time a person is denied coverage for such a procedure. They either die or go bankrupt. So what's the difference?

I should have clarified that his was not speaking about “all people” but people in our church. Anecdotal, not scientific evidence, but pretty illuminating considering the very conservative leanings of this particular pastor (whom I adore) and his flock (whom I also adore).