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

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......

But along with reconciling people's statements to the truth, we also need to seek the truth that will help us see the kind of reform that is needed.

Anyone who is serious about health care reform should read this article because it explains the background. If you can lay aside your preconceived conclusions and simply follow the logic of this article, I promise it's a worthwhile investment of your time.

http://mises.org/story/3613

Expanding government power via health care reform moves our country more and more away from "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" to "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Much of the craziness in health care costs is largely the result of our government interfering with free market forces in the first place. There are ways to correct some of the problems without expanding government power and control. Although human governments are said to be ordained by God, they are depicted in Scripture as wild beasts. Let's keep a leash on our wild beast.

Car Auctions...

Hiya! Quick question that's entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My blog looks weird when browsing from my iphone. I'm trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to fix this issue. If you have any suggestion...

Slug...

[

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

As a new visitor to this site it's remarkable how many people come here simply to try to dispute the Christian social justice values of this site and Sojourner's magazine. All that negative energy just to stymie the practice of social justice. I support and pray for the success of those who are trying to expose the fear and hate campaign to block health care for every American. Keep up your good work.

Welcome! The mood on this site is definitely changing. There is no respect anymore. Social Justice people get no respect in the religious broadcasting world either. I can't think of one religious program that promotes social justice. The religious right people have been heavily enfluenced by the conservative radio programming done over the last 50 yrs and extremely enfluenced by "talk" radio the last 15 yrs or so. SOJO is definitely in the minoirty and I'm glad I found this site. With your help we can make this a better place.

Thanks for the welcome and the encouragement. I go to blogs for information and encouragement of people who share social justice values. I find myself put off by the progressive blogs because of the course language and the rigid secularity. My progressivism is rooted in Christian spiritual values so approaching public policy issues like health care is primarily a moral/spiritual call to build a society and community based on the values of Christian mercy, a mercy that emanates from the redemptive Mercy of Christ.

So the issue of abandonment of Christ in our sisters and brothers around us, turning our back on or responding to the invitation to participate in Christ's limitless loving mercy, is at the heart of the health care question for me. My wife's sister at age 57 is facing life threatening cancer, and has been told by her insurance they will no longer cover her treatment. It is a privilege that we can help her financially and otherwise. Even so she may face medical bankruptcy and harassment by medical bill collectors, along with possibly losing her treatment and her life. But so many have no one at all when facing these things.

How can we turn our backs on one another like this? And we may be the one next who faces this. I recall vividly when I worked in hospice of the case of a man who abandoned his family, because his son was stricken with cancer and could only get treatment from Medicaid, but would only qualify for treatment if the family breadwinner were gone. What kind of morality, what kind of decency, what kind of Christianity is it, that supports a system like that, where a father must abandon his own child in order for him to get medical treatment? My own son died of Leukemia at a young age. At least I was able to be with him and give him a father's love to the end.

But along with reconciling people's statements to the truth, we also need to seek the truth that will help us see the kind of reform that is needed.

Anyone who is serious about health care reform should read this article because it explains the background. If you can lay aside your preconceived conclusions and simply follow the logic of this article, I promise it's a worthwhile investment of your time.

http://mises.org/story/3613

Expanding government power via health care reform moves our country more and more away from "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" to "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Much of the craziness in health care costs is largely the result of our government interfering with free market forces in the first place. There are ways to correct some of the problems without expanding government power and control. Although human governments are said to be ordained by God, they are depicted in Scripture as wild beasts. Let's keep a leash on our wild beast.

you lie!

When you stop sliming the God's Politics blog I promise I won't call you a nutjob.

Wolvereenie spreads unwarranted fear from the usual sources.

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

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

bielizna...

Sweet blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Cheers...

Those who race to this site to condemn are just showing how scared they are that they might be wrong. You'll notice it's mostly just speculation they are arguing about. They call the President a liar but cite no facts or even specifics.
You will find there are people who post here that actually have some thoughtful remarks to make.
I have no idea what it would take for these naysayers to realize that Rush ,et al are just manipulative liars. I remember when I first heard and last listened to Rush years ago. His argument against environmentalism was that we don't have to worry because by golly trees grow back.

Police Car Auctions...

This design is steller! You most certainly know how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Fantastic job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, ho...

you lie!

Another libertarian bucket of hogwash.

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»

Libertarian hypocrite claims "government is a 'wild beast'".
Does hammerud refuse all services provided by the 'wild beast'?
No he doesn't.
He's a hypocrite.

Flash Web Site Design States It's An Excellent Post Cool...

Excellent story, so we would link to this keep up the great work!!!...