Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Because regardless of party affiliation they are afraid to cross the insurance conglomerates.

Money isn't the problem! Thw US literally spends twice as much and leaves 44-50 million of its citizens without access to the health care system.
The problem is we spend that money with for-profit Insurance companies who tak 25-30% off the top for overhead and profit.

How about Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Alan Grayson...

Amen brother (or sister). I understand how you feel. If only Christians spent half the time pushing each other to help the poor and needy through individual action as we do through the government...

Excellent points; I agree.

Unfortunately, Jim is falling into the categories of evangelists that he so often reviles: the partisan. Mr. Wallis seems to believe that it was bad of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to "hijack" Christianity and turn evangelicals into Republicans based on abortion and gay issues. He thought these had more shades of gray.

Fair enough...but now to be a good Christian I must support Single-payer health care? Welfare for all? Unions?

At least the Bible mentions abortion and homosexuality specifically.

I always hated it when I got sick as a child. Everyone would get upset and argue about who's fault it was. And how expensive it was.

I always felt guilty about being sick. It seemed like it was my fault for getting sick.

Is that how we are going to solve this problem?

That's rather misleading-Bill Clinton was a reasonably successful President because he had to work both sides of the aisle. Obama is heading for a disaster if he tries to turn his slim 53% popular vote into a totally partisan takeover of the health system and everything else

You lose your bet. My insurance expires the end of December. I pay a fortune for it. I want to be able to have a choice of plans, like I have a choice of automobiles and practically anything else. I don't need coverage for abortions, artificial insemination, ( or facelifts, liposuction, for that matter). Nor do I wish to have a pooled risk with anyone who does. Get rid of 50 different rules for 50 states and let insurance companies COMPETE for my business across state lines. We could do that reform in a couple months, if Pelosi and the partisan tyrants in Congress and elsewhere would get out of the way.

Ahh, "that guy Jesus" again. He didn't spend much time telling us how to get the government to do things that are inconvenient to do ourselves! And, yeah, I could do better in the hands-on department, myself. Years of telling myself "at least I vote for the poor" has taken its toll. I'm not a huge fan of Jim anymore. A "recovering Christian liberal," I remain, Wtiness4Peace

Libertarian Christian: Youmight appreciate this....responding[elsewhere] to Becky: what Jim “Stands for” or once “stood for”? I still support the latter, but not the former.

I subscribed from 1980 until the late 90's and still think Jim was right in many of his criticisms of the Reagan Administration, especially the deceit and injustice surrounding his Nicaragua policy. Now he's just another partisan, left-wing Democrat. Why is Jim scolding us about the “morality” of national health care while remaining silent on the invasion of Afghanistan? Jim says he's against abortion, but helps Obama deceive us that subsidizing premiums doesn't constitute a change in the government's abortion policy. Subsidizing abortion insurance is paying for abortion, period.
As for Republican inaction during their 8 years? I offer no defense—the Bush years weren't the Reagan years. Republicans tended not to see health care as an urgent problem—but they do have a number of solutions. Best would be to allow companies to compete across state lines. What if Michigan said only automobiles assembled in that state may be sold there? What if every state said that? But that's how state insurance commissioners run things. It's absurd to be forbidden to buy a private plan with exactly the coverage you desire, from any company willing to underwrite it. Thinking of an abortion? Buy a plan that covers it. Otherwise, don't buy a plan that covers that, or artificial insemination, or whatever. A truly free market would be far from perfect—but it would also be far different, and arguably far better, than the state by state mess we have now.

Becky: what Jim “Stands for” or once “stood for”? I still support the later, but not the former.

I subscribed from 1980 until the late 90's and still think Jim was right in many of his criticisms of the Reagan Administration, especially the deceit and injustice surrounding his Nicaragua policy. Now he's just another partisan, left-wing Democrat. Why is Jim scolding us about the “morality” of national health care while remaining silent on the invasion of Afghanistan? Jim says he's against abortion, but helps Obama deceive us that subsidizing premiums doesn't constitute a change in the government's abortion policy. Subsidizing abortion insurance is paying for abortion, period.
As for Republican inaction during their 8 years? I offer no defense—the Bush years weren't the Reagan years. Republicans tended not to see health care as an urgent problem—but they do have a number of solutions. Best would be to allow companies to compete across state lines. What if Michigan said only automobiles assembled in that state may be sold there? What if every state said that? But that's how state insurance commissioners run things. It's absurd to be forbidden to buy a private plan with exactly the coverage you desire, from any company willing to underwrite it. Thinking of an abortion? Buy a plan that covers it. Otherwise, don't buy a plan that covers that, or artificial insemination, or whatever. A truly free market would be far from perfect—but it would also be far different, and arguably far better, than the state by state mess we have now.

I would say that it is lying to promise one thing and then push something completly different say one thing and then say you didnt say it. Nothing being pushed is anything like what he spoke about in his campaign. agree or disagree. is what is being pushed anything like what congress has. true or false. the deathh panel issue was over hyped or mistermed, or misunderstood. the death panels I believe were more of what would eventually happen, because we probably will run out of money. and it was a "term' used to discribe a panel that would discide if what your needing is worth "considering" we are kindof out of money now. Yea maybe it was a bit strong but nothing more then we see on the other side with what bush ever said or did. he was satan remember. It was a "concern" that this system would eventually create a sort of "death panel' to deal with its lack of money. sounds a bit reasonable, how else would they deal with it. you can only tax so much right.

"The bills in Congress DO NOT create a single payer system!" but many Dems have stated that this is the future plan, a public option is just the foot in the door.

"You say, "emotionalism seems to work but its generally a deception becuase there are no facts to back it up." Do you think the video lied when it stated that people lined up and waited to be seen at a free clinic?"
This is an emotional argument and emotional arguments are good when used for good purposes, but there needs to be complete context. In the health care debate the emotional arguments have been used to support a complete overhaul or just a public option. Why not just focus on purchasing insurance for the uninsured instead of changing the system or pushing for tort reform? Also, that story several months ago was used to quickly move through congress a bill that would change the lives of every individual in the US not just those without insurance. Plus, the health care industry is 1/6th of our ailing economy, so this is a critical issue that needs to be fully thought and worked through.

I wish... The government's got way more debt than we do because we have so many dern laws. And there's not been a just war fought by America since WWII; even that had problems. So if it were possible believe me I'd join you in asking for this.

I'm ashamed that the church hasn't stepped up more. I'm not ashamed to oppose a government solution. But what touches a raw nerve for me is that because I don't support a government solution those who do think I don't care.

I think the free lines are a great example of Christian charity, if indeed I recall correctly that it was a charity clinic. So no, I don't see injustice in this situation unless there are unmentioned problems. But then those problems should be mentioned rather than the free lines.

Government and money don't mix well. Money is a root of all evil; governments are full of fallible, mistaken, evil people like me. But the mechanisms for accountability in government are purely synthetic, and generally inferior to the free market. So when I believe that the free market can't fix it I'll try government. It's your job to show me that the free market can't do it.

AP fact check article titled, "Health insurer profits not so fat."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D...

Let's not bear false witness...any of us here.

If such a scene, and the sad state of affairs it represents, in our country, supposedly the "richest country in the world" doesn't scream "Injustice!" to you, I don't think there's anything I could ever say to convince you otherwise.

I've been trying to understand the strong adverse reaction to this ad by some here, why it seems to have touched such a raw nerve, and I think we may find the answer, at least partly, here- it's shame and embarrassment. That the poor, uninsured, or under-insured, are so desperate for health care that they are willing to wait outside in line for eight hours for care. This is what happens in "other" places, third world countries. Not here.

Great idea kansasmennonite! I never thought of it that way. I feel really stolen from!

Can I have my portion of the money spent on the wars back? I think I could easily pay for all of my health care needs that way and then some!

Oh yes, we have very much in common. In fact, we the most important thing in common- Jesus!

And I view and was speaking of "the church" as the body of Christ, not as a physical building, just as you mentioned.

And yes, I think we just have differing approaches. As for government, I think it has a role to play in fixing our health care system. Other countries seem to have found ways to provide quality universal health care to their citizens (while spending less than we do!) and I believe that we can do the same without sacrificing quality. We're Americans, after all! We know how to innovate- for me, it's just a matter of getting the special interests out of the way, reducing their power in other words. They're making a killing, we're spending 1/6 of our GDP on health care, and not everyone is covered or receiving health care?? We can do better.

And thanks for the encouragement- i think most of us have more in common than we realize!