Judgment Day: Does Matthew 25 Apply to the Health-Care Debate?

It's not "our own set of values" It's the values the framers established in this country.

Paul said if a Christian doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. Would Paul have allowed the Church to pay for lazy unbelievers?

Actually, by mandating emergency rooms see any patient that comes through the door, the US government has ensured access to health care to all. The discussion is, to what limits that access is held to. If health care is a right, is there any valid justification for the government being able to deny that right based only on funding?

"How are you or I helping the least of these if we make someone else do it? "
At least they get helped! You might want to ask those currently receiving assistance through government programs if they would prefer to rely only on Christian charity for all their needs. How many people in need can you yourself provide with meals, housing, education, health care? Supporting community and governmental assistance programs does not preclude getting our hands dirty and making true sacrifices of our own. Our compassion does not have to diminish just because we organize help through governmental means as well.

It may be that we as Christians are called to do more, but that does not require that our society should do less.

I have to say I just don't understand it how you could Love the Lord and support governments further support of abortion through tax dollars and policies. , But that is limited to my understanding . Two believers can disagree on a policy written by Congress so the average American can not understand it , But when you defend it using scripture you set yourself up to judged in the way you are judging others. This government policy was Written by those who have a different health care program then they are proposing . Reminds me of Animal Farm and some of the pigs saying some are more equal then others.

SoJo used Fact Check as a reliable reference ,
I guess some lives have more value then others too Valerie ?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which...The truth is that bills now before Congress don't require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it's equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it.

I'm confused. For years liberals/progressives have tried to ram the idea of separation of church and state down our throats. Yet in the areas of poverty/health care, you want to use scripture (out of context I might add), to justify GOVERNMENT programs.

You can't have it both ways.

What makes you think those evil progressives have forgotten about the poor in third world countries? There are government programs as well as private organizations trying to help these people. You can also. How about adopting or sponsoring a child? I spent $32 a month to help my little girl and her family in Rwanda. It is amazing what a relatively small amount can do there.
But then you might have to worry about someone claiming you don't care emough about the poor in this country. It's always easier to critize what someone else is doing or not doing than to make a commitment yourself.

So, then, wonderful, Jesus' command was to take care of everyone who was in need. Sounds awesome. Where, exactly, did Jesus authorize the employment of coercion and violence to accomplish this?

"How are you or I helping the least of these if we make someone else do it? "

That question seems to pre-suppose that you are not helping others by advocating for more just and equitable policies--- an assumption that many of us do not share.

"It's always easier to critize what someone else is doing or not doing than to make a commitment yourself."

How do you know what I'm doing or not doing? If I said anything about what I do, just like you just said you did, jamesm will be saying I am "bragging." So, he can tell you, with a great deal of sarcasm, because he follows me around no matter what I say.

BTW : It's been found that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to giving.

It was a study done by a professor who was surprised by the findings. He was interviewed on NPR. I can look it up in the archives if you want. It wasn't a government-funded study that I know of...

read Who Really Cares? by Arthur C. Brooks instead of making sarcastic comments.

The average conservative is more likely to give to charity than the average liberal, one reason being political philosophy. (There are other reasons, like having kids.) Since liberals believe it is the role of gov't to help poor people, they are less likely to do it themselves because gov't is already taking care of it.

Ando has a problem with "progressives"-- he feels free to openly insult them on the blog. He fails to realize how utterly offensive he is. It is his problem/issue. Not ours.

"It's always easier to critize what someone else is doing or not doing than to make a commitment yourself."

How do you know what I'm doing or not doing? If I said anything about what I do, just like you just said you did, jamesm will be saying I am "bragging." So, he can tell you, with a great deal of sarcasm, because he follows me around no matter what I say.

BTW : It's been found that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to giving.

It was a study done by a professor who was surprised by the findings. He was interviewed on NPR. I can look it up in the archives if you want. It wasn't a government-funded study that I know of...

I was not accusing you personally of doing or not doing anything in particular. I don't judge people when I don't know the facts. I was making a simple observation of human nature and perhaps trying to motivate people to do more and talk less.

It is not surprising that some study would find conservatives "more generouis" for a number of reasons. From my work in statistics and research, I would not take any such study at face value without knowing how it was conducted. You can put together a study to prove that a large turtle carries the sun across the sky if you want to.

It would be important to know many things like the comparative incomes, whether it was just monetary donations that were covered, how truthfiulness was determined, etc, etc. It would also be important to know who paid for the study and if there are other such studies.

Generosity is very difficult to measure. I know people who donate a lot of money to various causes, but cheat on their taxes and would sell thier best friend down the river for a nickel. And there are people who have little money to offer, but donate generaously of their time and labor.

I was not accusing you personally of doing or not doing anything in particular. I don't judge people when I don't know the facts. I was making a simple observation of human nature and perhaps trying to motivate people to do more and talk less.

It is not surprising that some study would find conservatives "more generouis" for a number of reasons. From my work in statistics and research, I would not take any such study at face value without knowing how it was conducted. You can put together a study to prove that a large turtle carries the sun across the sky if you want to.

It would be important to know many things like the comparative incomes, whether it was just monetary donations that were covered, how truthfiulness was determined, etc, etc. It would also be important to know who paid for the study and if there are other such studies.

Generosity is very difficult to measure. I know people who donate a lot of money to various causes, but cheat on their taxes and would sell thier best friend down the river for a nickel. And there are people who have little money to offer, but donate generaously of their time and labor.

Great conversation going here. My first question is, did Jesus mention anything about the government getting involved in these affairs...?
Someone made a great point earlier about our unhealthiness in America is due to lifestyle...We should focus more on prevention and fixing the systems that are already in place, like Medicaid and Medicare, which I happen to be on right now - If an individual cannot afford healthcare, then Medicaid is available. The system is adequate-I have experienced it first hand and it is not the best care...

If we applied that logic, then shouldn't we start with the true least of these on the Earth? I mean, what about the many poor in developing countries who travel hours by foot to see a doctor or nurse. Only to stand in line for hours more, and possibly be turned away. How much of our health care cost is because of unhealthy behaviors, versus those who are starving or terribly sick from malaria, dengue or other horrible sicknesses? Where should we be placing our priorities? It's interesting that "progressives" like to bring up poverty on a world-wide scale, but when it comes to health care they seem to be very provincial.

Take money by the tyranny of the majority to support a public good is morally sound. Take money by the tyranny of the majority to supply a private good to others while also providing excessive compensation for lawyers, representatives, insurance executives, government bureaucrats and doctors is immoral. The feeding and care of the poor is a worthy goal. Jesus did not twist others arms, making them do charitable acts.

I have to say I just don't understand it how you could Love the Lord and support governments further support of abortion through tax dollars and policies. , But that is limited to my understanding . Two believers can disagree on a policy written by Congress so the average American can not understand it , But when you defend it using scripture you set yourself up to judged in the way you are judging others. This government policy was Written by those who have a different health care program then they are proposing . Reminds me of Animal Farm and some of the pigs saying some are more equal then others.

SoJo used Fact Check as a reliable reference ,
I guess some lives have more value then others too Valerie ?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which...The truth is that bills now before Congress don't require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it's equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it's likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it.

I'm confused. For years liberals/progressives have tried to ram the idea of separation of church and state down our throats. Yet in the areas of poverty/health care, you want to use scripture (out of context I might add), to justify GOVERNMENT programs.

You can't have it both ways.