Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Who Sinned, That This Child Was Born Uninsurable?

by Gunnar Cerda 10-16-2009 | 12:00pm
Print
104 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him." (John 9:1-3 NRSV)

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

My son, Benjamin, is a great kid. He is smart. He has a great sense of humor. He loves slapstick humor and NASCAR. In 7th grade this year he is in advanced science and advanced math. He has the potential to be an actuary or an aeronautical engineer when he grows up.

Benjamin also has an Individualized Education Plan. For despite his gifts in science and math, he struggles profoundly with receptive and expressive language skills. His challenges with motor skills make it difficult for him to write for extended periods of time. The classroom can become overwhelming for him at times, causing emotional and mental "meltdowns." For all of his gifts, Benjamin is equally beset by challenges in areas many of us take for granted every day.

See, Benjamin has Aspergers Syndrome, which is an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Some would call this a "disability." Insurance companies tend to call it a "pre-existing condition." Truth be told, it is about as pre-existing as life itself, having existed since birth.

One in every 150 children is diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorders. Because of this "pre-existing condition" label, the effects of Autism Spectrum Disorders, as well as remedies, therapies, and supports are not covered by insurance companies. This means that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children do not have access to health care, even if their parents do.

When the question was posed to Jesus ages ago, it was the same basic question we face today: Who sinned that this child should be marginalized and excluded from full participation in society as a person of sacred worth? Jesus' answer then is just as relevant today: No one sinned, and no one deserves to be excluded.

Our kids on "the spectrum" have done nothing to "deserve" the challenges which they face; they did not engage in any reckless or detrimental activity through which they brought about their challenges. In short, they have not sinned.

And neither have their parents. There is no activity in which parents have engaged which "caused" autism. In fact, there is nothing they could have done to prevent the lifelong challenge they now face. In short, there is nothing that was done which should have deserved exclusion from full participation in society, or removed such a person from the care and compassion of the community, either then or now.

Jesus does offer another perspective, however; he invites his followers and listeners to look at the situation through a different lens -- the lens of faith. It is as if to say, regardless of how the situation came to be, God's realm can be seen through this opportunity. Through healing and reconciliation, the Glory of God, which is love, can be seen in the world today.

This is the same invitation which calls out to us today, for God is still speaking. We have the opportunity to raise our prophetic voices on behalf of those who have trouble expressing their thoughts and needs. We have the opportunity to speak for those whom society has marginalized and designated "disabled" and "uninsurable." We have the opportunity to co-create a new future with God, one where those who have been outcast are re-integrated into the beloved community of caring. We have before us the chance to live into our call to discipleship as advocates for the realm of God.

Health-care reform is not simply some ivory tower debate. It is a real issue which affects real people -- people who already pay for insurance, as well as those who can not acquire coverage. It is an issue which calls us to raise our voices on behalf of God, for all of the children of God to be treated with steadfast love and justice.

Now is the time for us to heed the call. Now is the time for us to raise our voices. Not just for me as a parent, not simply in response to me as a minister. Not just for Benjamin, or the other kids similar to him in our community. But instead, for the millions of children affected by Autism Spectrum Disorders, both now and in the future. For I have no doubt that if we do, then truly the Glory of God will be seen in the midst of the "other abilities" of the children of sacred worth on the Autism Spectrum, and all the children labeled with and excluded by "disabilities."

Rev. Gunnar A. Cerda MDiv, is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and lives in Delaware, Ohio.

104 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:27pm

How do you propose to reform health care? It's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

Insurance, pharma, and health care conglomerates are so powerful right now that they are sucking us dry- I can barely afford my premiums (which keep rising each year, although my income doesn't) or my co-pays. And I worry every day that if I do get sick that I'll be denied coverage or dropped. How else are we supposed to fix this if not by government intervention and regulation? Personally, I'm not convinced that this will happen either- too many congressmen/women have sold out to these industries- Democratic and Republican.

I just don't see another way. I'd really like to know if there is another way to tame these beasts of industry.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:43pm

Yes, you are right, the issue is always power- people only use money to acquire power.

And I often wonder the same thing about tithing.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 6:41pm

Part of the reason health care is so expensive is because the
government got into it in the first place with Medicare etc. Once the
free market was invaded and people figured out that they can get money
simply by filling out forms, prices began to escalate. I think the
government could remove state barriers for insurance companies,
giving increased options for insurance to those of us who need
insurance. It would also greatly increase competition among insurance
companies, and that lowers cost. The government could make it illegal
for any insurance company to deny coverage based on pre-existing
conditions. I don't have all the answers, but I if I were king I
would tap into the brain power available to government to find
solutions that do not increase government control. Government control
might be OK with a good king, but a danger when that power is in the
hands of a bad king. I want health care reform, but not with more
government. And I feel for you with your health care costs. I have
loved ones in the same boat, and it bothers me.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:28pm

I don't believe that everybody who differs with me believes that the
real goal is expanded government control, but that is the goal of the
liberal and "progressive" powers behind current proposals. It is not
slander. It is the truth. I don't think that you believe that, and I
think you really do care for the less fortunate. I do too, but with
solutions that make sense. One problem we have is that we are out of
money.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 7:01pm

Actually, it is very difficult to apply and qualify for medicaid. Medicare is a little easier because you are eligible once you reach the age of 65. Extremely poor people and seniors had it much worse before Medicare /Medicaid was enacted. I would argue that costs of health care increased when the insurance middle men started to get in the way. They (and others who sought to profit from the industry) made a health care system, something that should benefit individual people and the nation as a whole, into a for-profit free for all. I don't believe that health care should be a profit-based system.

That is not to say that I don't believe that doctors and hospitals should be reimbursed at fair rates for the services they provide to patients. It's the rest of the waste in between that I have a problem with.

I'm not convinced that removing state barriers would do anything to control costs- they're all owned by the same companies anyway. And service provided in the poorer states may be all that is affordable to poor people in other states.

As for getting rid of pre-existing conditions- I am right there with you. This would do a lot to ease the anxiety I and many of your loved ones feel, and ease the suffering of those who do have pre-existing conditions.

I suffer from terrible migraines, neck and back pain. Physical therapy has helped in the past, so as soon as I got student health insurance (paid $1200 for it! and the premium was $1500 this year) I went to the doctor and was basically told, sorry, you'll have to suffer in pain for six months until your insurance will cover it. Mine is a small example, but exemplifies the barbarity of our "health care" system.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:34pm

Hammerud, I am the liberal and progressive powers that you're talking about. You are either slandering me personally, or calling me an idiot for not being able to see through the motivations of those who you assume are leading the charge to which I have lent my full support. Either way, you are wrong. It is your glib assumption that you know what is motivating those who disagree with you that I find insufferable.

by: ando

10-16-2009 @ 7:07pm

"The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

No doubt he has statistical facts to back him up. Unlike the researcher who did find that conservatives were more generous than liberals, which differed from his hypothesis.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 7:08pm

"I think the government could remove state barriers for insurance companies, giving increased options for insurance to those of us who need insurance. It would also greatly increase competition among insurance companies, and that lowers cost."

That makes sense. However, removing state barriers won't truly do anything as long as we have a health insurance monopoly cartel. This monopoly cartel will continue to fix prices, raising rates.

The health insurance monopoly cartel must be broken up so that we can have a true free market.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:42pm

This is outrageous. I recently heard about a very young (only a month or two old) infant who was denied coverage by the parents' insurance company because he was "too large." Too large??!! Was he born "obese" or born a "glutton" that he must be cursed from birth? Fortunately for this baby, one of his parents happened to be a news anchor for a local TV station and he reported this widely. Eventually the bad publicity forced the insurance company to accept his son for coverage. But what happens for infants whose parents aren't in the news industry?

From what I understand, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. So they can form monopoly cartels and fix prices to their hearts' desires. They can determine policies where people are arbitrarily excluded.

This is not the free market, this is not capitalism. This is what I would call "industrial socialism." This exemption from anti-trust laws needs to be fixed immediately.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 7:15pm

He was speaking about people in his own congregation. I think he would know and I take him at his word.

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).

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 5:43pm

That doesn't help when law and custom supported by the "majority" help to keep people powerless, as was the case in the South; the opposition to the civil-rights movement, may I remind you, was justified by fears of "big government."

And speaking of which, what (from a Christian perspective) is the role of government? To restrain evil and administer justice. Government steps in when, and only when everyone is "[doing] right in his own eyes" to the detriment of the least, last and lost. Basically, if you don't want the government to step in, "act justly and love mercy" -- I see "conservatives" as so obsessed with maintaining their ideology they really forget the real issue, which is the medically uninsured.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 7:21pm

I agree. That probably needs to be controlled too.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:46pm

"health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens."

What about industry cartel control over the lives of individual citizens -- protected by the government's having exempted health insurance companies from anti-trust laws and thus allowing them to act as a monopoly rather than within a true competitive free market?

I personally don't believe that a "public option" from the government would fix this, as there would still be the health insurance monopoly cartel to fix and set prices and raise premiums, shut out more people, and expand costs. The health insurance monopoly cartel needs to be broken up.

by: BelovedFollower

10-16-2009 @ 5:51pm

We are already spending more per capita than any country that provides coverage to all of their citizens! Saying we are broke is not a viable argument, as health care reform proponents are also expecting the ridiculous waste of monies available for healthcare to also be addressed. Single payer systems are not only the most humane, but also the most affordable of options. Replacing the current system should actually result in our being less broke!

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:52pm

It is clear that you do not have those motivations, but those are
the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their
views. Obama wants to "fundamentally transform this country." I want
things fixed, but not fundamentally transformed. People with communist
leanings, which Obama has (look at his Czars), want to grab power and
control. That is the goal of the money and power behind what is
proposed as health care "reform." I find what is going on in our
country as insufferable.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:55pm

"'[Hammerud]: "There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control.'

"[Anothernonymous]: Sure there are. But we haven't heard any seriously proposed, because those too would not be in the financial interest of those who want to maintain their own place in the current status quo."

Alas, probably true. What about health savings accounts that would be completely, 100% tax exempt that could be expanded to unlimited size? Of course government would then lose the tax revenue it needs to constantly engage in expensive military campaigns overseas. Or for spending tax dollars to maintain unneeded government agencies.

So what happens is that we end up with the choice of doing nothing, which the monopoly insurance cartel would love. Or else "reform" plans that mandate more laws such as requiring everyone to buy health insurance, which would please the monopoly insurance cartel even more.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:57pm

"those are the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their views."

NO, THEY'RE NOT. How many times do I have to say it? The money and power behind what is proposed as health care reform is my money and my power. If you're interested in discussing this with me, and not with a caricature of me, then we can continue this conversation.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 6:00pm

BTW, the czars were the people the Russian communists overthrew.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:18pm

As my former pastor, who is by no means liberal politically or socially, said, "The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

He wasn't making a plea for tithes or monetary gifts for the church or the poor (although I think that would be nice), he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

I'd really like to know, how many of the wealthiest 1-2%, who were the largest recipients of the Bush tax cuts started giving more to the poor as a result? The, "if only I wasn't taxed to death" argument for not giving is specious.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 6:26pm

...he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

The real issue is power, and to quote Charles Colson, it's like saltwater -- the more you drink the thirstier you get (which can lead to scapegoating). Anyway, I often wonder what would happen if every sincere Christian actually did tithe his/her income regardless of government.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:27pm

How do you propose to reform health care? It's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

Insurance, pharma, and health care conglomerates are so powerful right now that they are sucking us dry- I can barely afford my premiums (which keep rising each year, although my income doesn't) or my co-pays. And I worry every day that if I do get sick that I'll be denied coverage or dropped. How else are we supposed to fix this if not by government intervention and regulation? Personally, I'm not convinced that this will happen either- too many congressmen/women have sold out to these industries- Democratic and Republican.

I just don't see another way. I'd really like to know if there is another way to tame these beasts of industry.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:43pm

Yes, you are right, the issue is always power- people only use money to acquire power.

And I often wonder the same thing about tithing.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 6:41pm

Part of the reason health care is so expensive is because the
government got into it in the first place with Medicare etc. Once the
free market was invaded and people figured out that they can get money
simply by filling out forms, prices began to escalate. I think the
government could remove state barriers for insurance companies,
giving increased options for insurance to those of us who need
insurance. It would also greatly increase competition among insurance
companies, and that lowers cost. The government could make it illegal
for any insurance company to deny coverage based on pre-existing
conditions. I don't have all the answers, but I if I were king I
would tap into the brain power available to government to find
solutions that do not increase government control. Government control
might be OK with a good king, but a danger when that power is in the
hands of a bad king. I want health care reform, but not with more
government. And I feel for you with your health care costs. I have
loved ones in the same boat, and it bothers me.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 7:01pm

Actually, it is very difficult to apply and qualify for medicaid. Medicare is a little easier because you are eligible once you reach the age of 65. Extremely poor people and seniors had it much worse before Medicare /Medicaid was enacted. I would argue that costs of health care increased when the insurance middle men started to get in the way. They (and others who sought to profit from the industry) made a health care system, something that should benefit individual people and the nation as a whole, into a for-profit free for all. I don't believe that health care should be a profit-based system.

That is not to say that I don't believe that doctors and hospitals should be reimbursed at fair rates for the services they provide to patients. It's the rest of the waste in between that I have a problem with.

I'm not convinced that removing state barriers would do anything to control costs- they're all owned by the same companies anyway. And service provided in the poorer states may be all that is affordable to poor people in other states.

As for getting rid of pre-existing conditions- I am right there with you. This would do a lot to ease the anxiety I and many of your loved ones feel, and ease the suffering of those who do have pre-existing conditions.

I suffer from terrible migraines, neck and back pain. Physical therapy has helped in the past, so as soon as I got student health insurance (paid $1200 for it! and the premium was $1500 this year) I went to the doctor and was basically told, sorry, you'll have to suffer in pain for six months until your insurance will cover it. Mine is a small example, but exemplifies the barbarity of our "health care" system.

by: ando

10-16-2009 @ 7:07pm

"The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

No doubt he has statistical facts to back him up. Unlike the researcher who did find that conservatives were more generous than liberals, which differed from his hypothesis.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 7:08pm

"I think the government could remove state barriers for insurance companies, giving increased options for insurance to those of us who need insurance. It would also greatly increase competition among insurance companies, and that lowers cost."

That makes sense. However, removing state barriers won't truly do anything as long as we have a health insurance monopoly cartel. This monopoly cartel will continue to fix prices, raising rates.

The health insurance monopoly cartel must be broken up so that we can have a true free market.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 7:15pm

He was speaking about people in his own congregation. I think he would know and I take him at his word.

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).

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 7:21pm

I agree. That probably needs to be controlled too.

by: canucklehead

10-17-2009 @ 3:22am

Preach it, Squeaker. I am totally non-plussed by what's going on down there. It is purely an ideological argument entirely removed from reality, IMHO.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-17-2009 @ 4:51am

Completely removed from reality is right. I talk to Aussies, Brits, and Canucks and they all think it's strange that we don't have universal health care here. They don't have to worry about getting sick or losing their homes if they do.

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?

by: scat

10-21-2009 @ 12:48am

We use the government as a tool, the same way we use medicine as a tool. God could cure us all of all of our ills, but He doesn't because He expects us to use the brains he gave us to do things for ourselves that we are able to do.

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.

by: canucklehead

10-17-2009 @ 3:22am

Preach it, Squeaker. I am totally non-plussed by what's going on down there. It is purely an ideological argument entirely removed from reality, IMHO.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-17-2009 @ 4:51am

Completely removed from reality is right. I talk to Aussies, Brits, and Canucks and they all think it's strange that we don't have universal health care here. They don't have to worry about getting sick or losing their homes if they do.

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?

by: scat

10-21-2009 @ 12:48am

We use the government as a tool, the same way we use medicine as a tool. God could cure us all of all of our ills, but He doesn't because He expects us to use the brains he gave us to do things for ourselves that we are able to do.

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.

by: canucklehead

10-17-2009 @ 4:27pm

Radical - as long as there are people, any system will necessarily have shortcomings and faults. Nonetheless, what I see taking place in the U.S. in the current healthcare debate is akin to what some philosophers call radical dualism - where a system is either all good or all bad, all white or all black. Universal healthcare has it's challenges just like any man-made system, to be sure. Nonetheless, in 50+ years I have NEVER heard anyone in Canada express the kind of angst about their healthcare or their future healthcare that I heard regularly for five years during seminary days in the U.S. when I was a chaplain in an affluent nursing home. I am absolutely baffled by what appears to be the a priori personal baggage people haul into this discussion.

by: xfree9

10-21-2009 @ 12:30pm

Government may indeed be a tool, but it is certainly not "us." There is nothing further from the truth. It may not be a monarchy, but when under 1,000 people (elected or not) have the ability to dictate to others what they can and cannot do, or what they must do, over the millions of citizens in our nation, not to mention the foreign policy decisions that can be made, that is not a "power in the people." That is a heavy concentration of power with ostensible "shared power," but that power does not exist. Not to mention, using such "power" to control the lives of others is not a very Christian ethic to follow. The kingdoms of this world use power-over mechanisms because that is all they have at their disposal. Might does not make right, whether in a monarchy or in a democracy. The Kingdom of God uses a power-under, servanthood approach to change.

by: xfree9

10-21-2009 @ 12:34pm

Let me clarify a point about the concentration of power and its relationship to the power being based in "the people." When power is concentrated and delegated to the highest possible government agency (in the US the "federal government"), power is not "in the people." When governments are local and power is less concentrated, for instance, among the 50 states, or even in counties and cities, the power could be said to be more "of the people" or "in the people," because it is closer to the people it is said to have derived from.

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.

by: NC77

10-22-2009 @ 9:56pm

Yeah, one has to wonder why they don't just put the whole country on the "smorgaseboard of choices" plan that Congress has. I remembering Obama making that promise during his campaign. Opening competition over state lines would help too.

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?

by: xfree9

10-21-2009 @ 12:30pm

Government may indeed be a tool, but it is certainly not "us." There is nothing further from the truth. It may not be a monarchy, but when under 1,000 people (elected or not) have the ability to dictate to others what they can and cannot do, or what they must do, over the millions of citizens in our nation, not to mention the foreign policy decisions that can be made, that is not a "power in the people." That is a heavy concentration of power with ostensible "shared power," but that power does not exist. Not to mention, using such "power" to control the lives of others is not a very Christian ethic to follow. The kingdoms of this world use power-over mechanisms because that is all they have at their disposal. Might does not make right, whether in a monarchy or in a democracy. The Kingdom of God uses a power-under, servanthood approach to change.

by: xfree9

10-21-2009 @ 12:34pm

Let me clarify a point about the concentration of power and its relationship to the power being based in "the people." When power is concentrated and delegated to the highest possible government agency (in the US the "federal government"), power is not "in the people." When governments are local and power is less concentrated, for instance, among the 50 states, or even in counties and cities, the power could be said to be more "of the people" or "in the people," because it is closer to the people it is said to have derived from.

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.

by: canucklehead

10-17-2009 @ 4:27pm

Radical - as long as there are people, any system will necessarily have shortcomings and faults. Nonetheless, what I see taking place in the U.S. in the current healthcare debate is akin to what some philosophers call radical dualism - where a system is either all good or all bad, all white or all black. Universal healthcare has it's challenges just like any man-made system, to be sure. Nonetheless, in 50+ years I have NEVER heard anyone in Canada express the kind of angst about their healthcare or their future healthcare that I heard regularly for five years during seminary days in the U.S. when I was a chaplain in an affluent nursing home. I am absolutely baffled by what appears to be the a priori personal baggage people haul into this discussion.

by: NC77

10-22-2009 @ 7:56pm

Yeah, one has to wonder why they don't just put the whole country on the "smorgaseboard of choices" plan that Congress has. I remembering Obama making that promise during his campaign. Opening competition over state lines would help too.

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?

by: schroeder37

10-22-2009 @ 3:35pm

surprise, I doubt this would interest him. But as for the opening article. again obama said he would give us what congress and the government has. Just see what they have and compare it to what they are putting on us. HE LIED. the only thing he promised and have through with is helping those who helped him, and the baby killing. Its sad sojourners doesnt ever speak against this.

by: schroeder37

10-22-2009 @ 3:28pm

back them up. How about the white house called beck and merely asked him to stop calling them czars. didnt tell him to stop lieing. all of becks sources are legit and backed up. read his book, look at the back for his sources there all there.

by: squeaky

10-22-2009 @ 2:00pm

"the solutions have been brought up and ignored"

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?

by: schroeder37

10-21-2009 @ 3:49pm

the solutions have been brought up and ignored. which means they dont really care about reform but an agenda. those other countries are a bit smaller and if you dig deeper into it, less freedom. buit the biggest issue is that we do not have the money of it. So whether your right or i am right, we cannot afford it. So why not find alternative ways to fix what we have without putting the government in more massive debt. One also has to look deeper into the issue as in freedoms you give up money and what problems it will cause what it may lead to etc. Its not an oh we are all dying becasue of our health care industry is corrupt, this isnt true. It needs fixed but not at the expence of our freedoms and our kids and their kids taxes.

by: xfree9

10-19-2009 @ 4:14pm

"Government control" is a legitimate fear, regardless of its "smokescreen" usage by many neo-conservatives. If the government defends civil liberties, that is not "government control," it is a defense of civil liberties. "Control" is varied in its application, one of which can be to tell other people how to behave and act against their own will.

by: xfree9

10-19-2009 @ 4:16pm

I sat in the third or fourth row yesterday, and when the offering plate was passed, we saw a nickel and two pennies... my wife looked at me and chuckled.

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.

by: xfree9

10-19-2009 @ 4:14pm

"Government control" is a legitimate fear, regardless of its "smokescreen" usage by many neo-conservatives. If the government defends civil liberties, that is not "government control," it is a defense of civil liberties. "Control" is varied in its application, one of which can be to tell other people how to behave and act against their own will.

by: xfree9

10-19-2009 @ 4:16pm

I sat in the third or fourth row yesterday, and when the offering plate was passed, we saw a nickel and two pennies... my wife looked at me and chuckled.

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.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 2:21pm

Sorry about your son, and I do think there needs to be health care reform. However, when you say "we have the opportunity to co-create a new future with God, one where those who have been outcast are re-integrated into the beloved community of caring...," I infer that you support the health care "reform" efforts that are being pushed by the White House and elements of congress. The problem is that the idea of health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens. There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control. From the perspective of Scripture, governments are to be respected because, in our fallen world, they are ordained by God; but they also are correctly depicted in Scripture as wild beasts, and we are making a great error when we remove the leash from our wild beast. If the White House and congress get these "reforms" through, we will not like the consequences. In the 20th century, most people who were killed in the world were killed by their own governments. All of those governments were comprised of the same elements that comprise our government -- fallen, sinful people like me and you. Fix health care, but in ways that limit government.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 2:21pm

Sorry about your son, and I do think there needs to be health care reform. However, when you say "we have the opportunity to co-create a new future with God, one where those who have been outcast are re-integrated into the beloved community of caring...," I infer that you support the health care "reform" efforts that are being pushed by the White House and elements of congress. The problem is that the idea of health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens. There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control. From the perspective of Scripture, governments are to be respected because, in our fallen world, they are ordained by God; but they also are correctly depicted in Scripture as wild beasts, and we are making a great error when we remove the leash from our wild beast. If the White House and congress get these "reforms" through, we will not like the consequences. In the 20th century, most people who were killed in the world were killed by their own governments. All of those governments were comprised of the same elements that comprise our government -- fallen, sinful people like me and you. Fix health care, but in ways that limit government.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 2:40pm

You'll have to do better than that. In this country, using the excuse of "governmental control" is really a smokescreen for saying "We don't want to give up our privileged status." That's the bottom line.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 2:40pm

You'll have to do better than that. In this country, using the excuse of "governmental control" is really a smokescreen for saying "We don't want to give up our privileged status." That's the bottom line.

by: squeaky

10-16-2009 @ 3:14pm

and yet, in the 20th century, several governments have figured out a way to provide universal health care to their citizens. Canada's system gets held up by Americans as a failed health care system. Yet, if you talk to actual Canadians, they certainly don't see it that way, and in fact, express confusion as to why we do. In fact, industrialized countries that offer universal health care are pretty much all very confused about why the US does not.

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

by: squeaky

10-16-2009 @ 3:14pm

and yet, in the 20th century, several governments have figured out a way to provide universal health care to their citizens. Canada's system gets held up by Americans as a failed health care system. Yet, if you talk to actual Canadians, they certainly don't see it that way, and in fact, express confusion as to why we do. In fact, industrialized countries that offer universal health care are pretty much all very confused about why the US does not.

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

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 3:23pm

Do you really have so little understanding of what motivates supporters of health care reform that you think all we're trying to do is expand government control over people's lives? This is so far off base that I don't even know how to begin to respond. Could I suggest, though, that you address your arguments to real people, not some imaginary bogeyman whom you find easy to shoot down? You are not talking about me in your comments, and you are not talking about anybody else I know who is behind the effort to reform our nation's health care system. The idea that what we're trying to do has anything in common with the history of governmental genocide is offensive beyond belief.

Please address your arguments to the real people who are ashamed of our status as the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care. We are not cut-out villains whose motivations can be so easily and glibly impugned.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 3:23pm

Do you really have so little understanding of what motivates supporters of health care reform that you think all we're trying to do is expand government control over people's lives? This is so far off base that I don't even know how to begin to respond. Could I suggest, though, that you address your arguments to real people, not some imaginary bogeyman whom you find easy to shoot down? You are not talking about me in your comments, and you are not talking about anybody else I know who is behind the effort to reform our nation's health care system. The idea that what we're trying to do has anything in common with the history of governmental genocide is offensive beyond belief.

Please address your arguments to the real people who are ashamed of our status as the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care. We are not cut-out villains whose motivations can be so easily and glibly impugned.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 3:33pm

"There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control."

Sure there are. But we haven't heard any seriously proposed, because those too would not be in the financial interest of those who want to maintain their own place in the current status quo.

Realistically, expanding government control is, as George Washington warned, the main consequence of being engaged in foreign imperialism - "the greatest military the world has ever seen" - in the words of recent Presidents.

However, health care reform opponents dare not propose any realistic rearrangement of priorities, because for most of them this main cause of overwhelming government happens to be one they support expanding.

You are almost correct in your assessment of the responsibility for killing; and the people who perish from lack of health care within US borders could also be said to have been killed by their own government's failures.

In wars, governments order killing those they consider enemies and most perish because of that designation as enemies. It's no different with us: for instance, our war of choice in Viet Nam killed 4 million of theirs, while it took 58,000 of ours. In that case, most died because of our involvement. You could say that all perish because of the state's propensity to make war, which is really are own individual proclivity on a personal sin level too, and that once the murder and mayhem begin, all fight on exactly the same side - that of death and destruction. Thus government really is responsible for the deaths of its own people, whoever ends up firing the fatal shot that destroys each individual. And if the resources of the society are drained away from saving life in favor of this industrial-scale killing, those lives thrown away here for lack of care are destroyed by government too.

It's no wonder that people who have no problem with approving those sorts of things, without any qualms of conscience whatsoever, can't find any reason to support giving health care to their fellow human beings. If killing on a mass scale is OK, then 50 million or more without health car is a mere bagatelle in comparison, hardly worthy of a moment's notice in the larger scale of pursuit of self-interest, domination and war.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 3:33pm

"There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control."

Sure there are. But we haven't heard any seriously proposed, because those too would not be in the financial interest of those who want to maintain their own place in the current status quo.

Realistically, expanding government control is, as George Washington warned, the main consequence of being engaged in foreign imperialism - "the greatest military the world has ever seen" - in the words of recent Presidents.

However, health care reform opponents dare not propose any realistic rearrangement of priorities, because for most of them this main cause of overwhelming government happens to be one they support expanding.

You are almost correct in your assessment of the responsibility for killing; and the people who perish from lack of health care within US borders could also be said to have been killed by their own government's failures.

In wars, governments order killing those they consider enemies and most perish because of that designation as enemies. It's no different with us: for instance, our war of choice in Viet Nam killed 4 million of theirs, while it took 58,000 of ours. In that case, most died because of our involvement. You could say that all perish because of the state's propensity to make war, which is really are own individual proclivity on a personal sin level too, and that once the murder and mayhem begin, all fight on exactly the same side - that of death and destruction. Thus government really is responsible for the deaths of its own people, whoever ends up firing the fatal shot that destroys each individual. And if the resources of the society are drained away from saving life in favor of this industrial-scale killing, those lives thrown away here for lack of care are destroyed by government too.

It's no wonder that people who have no problem with approving those sorts of things, without any qualms of conscience whatsoever, can't find any reason to support giving health care to their fellow human beings. If killing on a mass scale is OK, then 50 million or more without health car is a mere bagatelle in comparison, hardly worthy of a moment's notice in the larger scale of pursuit of self-interest, domination and war.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:40pm

Not true at all. Health care needs reform, but not with expanded
government control.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:40pm

Not true at all. Health care needs reform, but not with expanded
government control.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:49pm

I was simply pointing out that this is about expanding government
control over peoples lives. It is about more power to the elite and
less freedom for the masses. It is about "people of the government, by
the government, and for the government," the opposite of a government
"of, by, and for the people." That is what it is about and "health
care" has been a tool, the securing of which has always been on the
agenda of those who want to run people's lives. There are better ways
to provide affordable healthcare for the masses, with a safety-net for
the truly destitute, than what is in the works. As far as pointing
out the "wild beast" nature of human government, as characterized by
Scripture, it is what it is. Human government, made up of human
beings, is not some absolute moral entity. I do respect government,
consistent with Romans 13, but want it constrained. A lot of
governments have legitimized is abomination to God.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:49pm

I was simply pointing out that this is about expanding government
control over peoples lives. It is about more power to the elite and
less freedom for the masses. It is about "people of the government, by
the government, and for the government," the opposite of a government
"of, by, and for the people." That is what it is about and "health
care" has been a tool, the securing of which has always been on the
agenda of those who want to run people's lives. There are better ways
to provide affordable healthcare for the masses, with a safety-net for
the truly destitute, than what is in the works. As far as pointing
out the "wild beast" nature of human government, as characterized by
Scripture, it is what it is. Human government, made up of human
beings, is not some absolute moral entity. I do respect government,
consistent with Romans 13, but want it constrained. A lot of
governments have legitimized is abomination to God.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:55pm

I fully agree with your legitimate criticisms of our government's past
choices in many areas. I simply believe that what is being proposed is
about expanding government power over our lives. There have been
good proposals to fix the health care system, but those proposals do not
see the light of day because those in control have as their real goal
the expansion of government control. By the way, as a country, we have
no money. We are broke. A lot of things might be nice to do, but we
are broke.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 3:55pm

I fully agree with your legitimate criticisms of our government's past
choices in many areas. I simply believe that what is being proposed is
about expanding government power over our lives. There have been
good proposals to fix the health care system, but those proposals do not
see the light of day because those in control have as their real goal
the expansion of government control. By the way, as a country, we have
no money. We are broke. A lot of things might be nice to do, but we
are broke.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 4:37pm

I beg to differ. In this country government has been THE primary force for social justice, and believe you me that has caused a great deal of resentment toward the less-powerful. See, people like the idea of "helping the poor" -- that is, unless and until it actually costs them something, and that's what really drives the complaints about "big government."

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 4:37pm

I beg to differ. In this country government has been THE primary force for social justice, and believe you me that has caused a great deal of resentment toward the less-powerful. See, people like the idea of "helping the poor" -- that is, unless and until it actually costs them something, and that's what really drives the complaints about "big government."

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 4:39pm

Some are more broke, and broken by it, than others.

Some of those who resist change most are those who are not yet broke but fear it and see their best chance for keeping it that way, is to not be their brother's keeper.

The bi-partisan government bailouts went to the haves, while the have-nots are being thrown overboard.

Those who say that our fiscal situation is such that many must be forced out of the financial lifeboat to keep it afloat, are the ones most in favor of the sanctity of the bailouts.

I think all are mostly agreed that on things that are "nice to do," and considering that we are a people not given to self-denial, that vast expenditures on foreign wars are an indulgence we cannot give up, no matter what else we find necessary to sacrifice to the compulsion.

by: NMRod

10-16-2009 @ 4:39pm

Some are more broke, and broken by it, than others.

Some of those who resist change most are those who are not yet broke but fear it and see their best chance for keeping it that way, is to not be their brother's keeper.

The bi-partisan government bailouts went to the haves, while the have-nots are being thrown overboard.

Those who say that our fiscal situation is such that many must be forced out of the financial lifeboat to keep it afloat, are the ones most in favor of the sanctity of the bailouts.

I think all are mostly agreed that on things that are "nice to do," and considering that we are a people not given to self-denial, that vast expenditures on foreign wars are an indulgence we cannot give up, no matter what else we find necessary to sacrifice to the compulsion.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 4:45pm

We should help the poor. That means I should use my money to help the
poor, and I do. I should not take someone else's money and use it to
help the poor. If I do, I'm not helping the poor. I'm stealing. The
government should be out of the social welfare business. Their
misguided involvement in all of this social welfare stuff has helped
to bankrupt us. Social security is broke. Medicare is broke. And we
want the government now to take over health care?? We are broke. We
have no money. And, regarding the government being the primary force
for social justice, there are millions of babies that have been killed
in abortion consistent with established law. Where is the social
justice for them?? As I said, I respect government consistent with
Romans 13, but do not look to government to right the ills of this
world. Ultimately, the will be righted by the return of Christ.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 4:45pm

We should help the poor. That means I should use my money to help the
poor, and I do. I should not take someone else's money and use it to
help the poor. If I do, I'm not helping the poor. I'm stealing. The
government should be out of the social welfare business. Their
misguided involvement in all of this social welfare stuff has helped
to bankrupt us. Social security is broke. Medicare is broke. And we
want the government now to take over health care?? We are broke. We
have no money. And, regarding the government being the primary force
for social justice, there are millions of babies that have been killed
in abortion consistent with established law. Where is the social
justice for them?? As I said, I respect government consistent with
Romans 13, but do not look to government to right the ills of this
world. Ultimately, the will be righted by the return of Christ.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:05pm

"I was simply pointing out that this is about expanding government control over peoples lives."

Hammerud, you are wrong. It is not about expanding government control over people's lives. That is not what I want out of health care reform, and it is not what anybody else I know wants out of health care reform. You are attacking a straw man.

Let me introduce myself. I am a real person who supports health care reform because I am deeply ashamed of living in the only advanced country in the world in which it is not already a basic human right. I have a wife who is a cancer survivor and who would not be insurable if I were to die or lose my job. But even if it weren't for this fact, I would find living in a country where health care is not considered a basic human right morally intolerable.

You may disagree with me, but don't try to tell me what this is about. That negates my humanity, making me into a cipher in your view of how the universe operates. You cannot be in dialogue with others when you hold such assumptions.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:05pm

"I was simply pointing out that this is about expanding government control over peoples lives."

Hammerud, you are wrong. It is not about expanding government control over people's lives. That is not what I want out of health care reform, and it is not what anybody else I know wants out of health care reform. You are attacking a straw man.

Let me introduce myself. I am a real person who supports health care reform because I am deeply ashamed of living in the only advanced country in the world in which it is not already a basic human right. I have a wife who is a cancer survivor and who would not be insurable if I were to die or lose my job. But even if it weren't for this fact, I would find living in a country where health care is not considered a basic human right morally intolerable.

You may disagree with me, but don't try to tell me what this is about. That negates my humanity, making me into a cipher in your view of how the universe operates. You cannot be in dialogue with others when you hold such assumptions.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:15pm

I totally agree that the system needs to be reformed and I certainly
do not want to negate your humanity, but what is going on now is about
expanding government control over people's lives and "health care" is
simply being used as the tool of choice by those who want expanded
control. We just disagree on that, but I do want the system to be
reformed so that those like you dealing with serious medical issues
are covered. There are ways to do that without increasing government
control.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:15pm

I totally agree that the system needs to be reformed and I certainly
do not want to negate your humanity, but what is going on now is about
expanding government control over people's lives and "health care" is
simply being used as the tool of choice by those who want expanded
control. We just disagree on that, but I do want the system to be
reformed so that those like you dealing with serious medical issues
are covered. There are ways to do that without increasing government
control.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:23pm

"There are ways to do that without increasing government control."

That may be so, but if you insist on believing that those who differ with you are simply interested in expanding government control over people's lives, you are not contributing constructively to the argument. That's not disagreement; it's slander.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:23pm

"There are ways to do that without increasing government control."

That may be so, but if you insist on believing that those who differ with you are simply interested in expanding government control over people's lives, you are not contributing constructively to the argument. That's not disagreement; it's slander.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:28pm

I don't believe that everybody who differs with me believes that the
real goal is expanded government control, but that is the goal of the
liberal and "progressive" powers behind current proposals. It is not
slander. It is the truth. I don't think that you believe that, and I
think you really do care for the less fortunate. I do too, but with
solutions that make sense. One problem we have is that we are out of
money.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:28pm

I don't believe that everybody who differs with me believes that the
real goal is expanded government control, but that is the goal of the
liberal and "progressive" powers behind current proposals. It is not
slander. It is the truth. I don't think that you believe that, and I
think you really do care for the less fortunate. I do too, but with
solutions that make sense. One problem we have is that we are out of
money.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:34pm

Hammerud, I am the liberal and progressive powers that you're talking about. You are either slandering me personally, or calling me an idiot for not being able to see through the motivations of those who you assume are leading the charge to which I have lent my full support. Either way, you are wrong. It is your glib assumption that you know what is motivating those who disagree with you that I find insufferable.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:34pm

Hammerud, I am the liberal and progressive powers that you're talking about. You are either slandering me personally, or calling me an idiot for not being able to see through the motivations of those who you assume are leading the charge to which I have lent my full support. Either way, you are wrong. It is your glib assumption that you know what is motivating those who disagree with you that I find insufferable.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:42pm

This is outrageous. I recently heard about a very young (only a month or two old) infant who was denied coverage by the parents' insurance company because he was "too large." Too large??!! Was he born "obese" or born a "glutton" that he must be cursed from birth? Fortunately for this baby, one of his parents happened to be a news anchor for a local TV station and he reported this widely. Eventually the bad publicity forced the insurance company to accept his son for coverage. But what happens for infants whose parents aren't in the news industry?

From what I understand, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. So they can form monopoly cartels and fix prices to their hearts' desires. They can determine policies where people are arbitrarily excluded.

This is not the free market, this is not capitalism. This is what I would call "industrial socialism." This exemption from anti-trust laws needs to be fixed immediately.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:42pm

This is outrageous. I recently heard about a very young (only a month or two old) infant who was denied coverage by the parents' insurance company because he was "too large." Too large??!! Was he born "obese" or born a "glutton" that he must be cursed from birth? Fortunately for this baby, one of his parents happened to be a news anchor for a local TV station and he reported this widely. Eventually the bad publicity forced the insurance company to accept his son for coverage. But what happens for infants whose parents aren't in the news industry?

From what I understand, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. So they can form monopoly cartels and fix prices to their hearts' desires. They can determine policies where people are arbitrarily excluded.

This is not the free market, this is not capitalism. This is what I would call "industrial socialism." This exemption from anti-trust laws needs to be fixed immediately.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 5:43pm

That doesn't help when law and custom supported by the "majority" help to keep people powerless, as was the case in the South; the opposition to the civil-rights movement, may I remind you, was justified by fears of "big government."

And speaking of which, what (from a Christian perspective) is the role of government? To restrain evil and administer justice. Government steps in when, and only when everyone is "[doing] right in his own eyes" to the detriment of the least, last and lost. Basically, if you don't want the government to step in, "act justly and love mercy" -- I see "conservatives" as so obsessed with maintaining their ideology they really forget the real issue, which is the medically uninsured.

by: BlueDeacon

10-16-2009 @ 5:43pm

That doesn't help when law and custom supported by the "majority" help to keep people powerless, as was the case in the South; the opposition to the civil-rights movement, may I remind you, was justified by fears of "big government."

And speaking of which, what (from a Christian perspective) is the role of government? To restrain evil and administer justice. Government steps in when, and only when everyone is "[doing] right in his own eyes" to the detriment of the least, last and lost. Basically, if you don't want the government to step in, "act justly and love mercy" -- I see "conservatives" as so obsessed with maintaining their ideology they really forget the real issue, which is the medically uninsured.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:46pm

"health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens."

What about industry cartel control over the lives of individual citizens -- protected by the government's having exempted health insurance companies from anti-trust laws and thus allowing them to act as a monopoly rather than within a true competitive free market?

I personally don't believe that a "public option" from the government would fix this, as there would still be the health insurance monopoly cartel to fix and set prices and raise premiums, shut out more people, and expand costs. The health insurance monopoly cartel needs to be broken up.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:46pm

"health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens."

What about industry cartel control over the lives of individual citizens -- protected by the government's having exempted health insurance companies from anti-trust laws and thus allowing them to act as a monopoly rather than within a true competitive free market?

I personally don't believe that a "public option" from the government would fix this, as there would still be the health insurance monopoly cartel to fix and set prices and raise premiums, shut out more people, and expand costs. The health insurance monopoly cartel needs to be broken up.

by: BelovedFollower

10-16-2009 @ 5:51pm

We are already spending more per capita than any country that provides coverage to all of their citizens! Saying we are broke is not a viable argument, as health care reform proponents are also expecting the ridiculous waste of monies available for healthcare to also be addressed. Single payer systems are not only the most humane, but also the most affordable of options. Replacing the current system should actually result in our being less broke!

by: BelovedFollower

10-16-2009 @ 5:51pm

We are already spending more per capita than any country that provides coverage to all of their citizens! Saying we are broke is not a viable argument, as health care reform proponents are also expecting the ridiculous waste of monies available for healthcare to also be addressed. Single payer systems are not only the most humane, but also the most affordable of options. Replacing the current system should actually result in our being less broke!

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:52pm

It is clear that you do not have those motivations, but those are
the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their
views. Obama wants to "fundamentally transform this country." I want
things fixed, but not fundamentally transformed. People with communist
leanings, which Obama has (look at his Czars), want to grab power and
control. That is the goal of the money and power behind what is
proposed as health care "reform." I find what is going on in our
country as insufferable.

by: hammerud

10-16-2009 @ 5:52pm

It is clear that you do not have those motivations, but those are
the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their
views. Obama wants to "fundamentally transform this country." I want
things fixed, but not fundamentally transformed. People with communist
leanings, which Obama has (look at his Czars), want to grab power and
control. That is the goal of the money and power behind what is
proposed as health care "reform." I find what is going on in our
country as insufferable.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:55pm

"'[Hammerud]: "There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control.'

"[Anothernonymous]: Sure there are. But we haven't heard any seriously proposed, because those too would not be in the financial interest of those who want to maintain their own place in the current status quo."

Alas, probably true. What about health savings accounts that would be completely, 100% tax exempt that could be expanded to unlimited size? Of course government would then lose the tax revenue it needs to constantly engage in expensive military campaigns overseas. Or for spending tax dollars to maintain unneeded government agencies.

So what happens is that we end up with the choice of doing nothing, which the monopoly insurance cartel would love. Or else "reform" plans that mandate more laws such as requiring everyone to buy health insurance, which would please the monopoly insurance cartel even more.

by: WaveTossed

10-16-2009 @ 5:55pm

"'[Hammerud]: "There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control.'

"[Anothernonymous]: Sure there are. But we haven't heard any seriously proposed, because those too would not be in the financial interest of those who want to maintain their own place in the current status quo."

Alas, probably true. What about health savings accounts that would be completely, 100% tax exempt that could be expanded to unlimited size? Of course government would then lose the tax revenue it needs to constantly engage in expensive military campaigns overseas. Or for spending tax dollars to maintain unneeded government agencies.

So what happens is that we end up with the choice of doing nothing, which the monopoly insurance cartel would love. Or else "reform" plans that mandate more laws such as requiring everyone to buy health insurance, which would please the monopoly insurance cartel even more.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:57pm

"those are the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their views."

NO, THEY'RE NOT. How many times do I have to say it? The money and power behind what is proposed as health care reform is my money and my power. If you're interested in discussing this with me, and not with a caricature of me, then we can continue this conversation.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 5:57pm

"those are the motivations of those who want to change society to fit their views."

NO, THEY'RE NOT. How many times do I have to say it? The money and power behind what is proposed as health care reform is my money and my power. If you're interested in discussing this with me, and not with a caricature of me, then we can continue this conversation.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 6:00pm

BTW, the czars were the people the Russian communists overthrew.

by: Anothernonymous

10-16-2009 @ 6:00pm

BTW, the czars were the people the Russian communists overthrew.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:18pm

As my former pastor, who is by no means liberal politically or socially, said, "The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

He wasn't making a plea for tithes or monetary gifts for the church or the poor (although I think that would be nice), he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

I'd really like to know, how many of the wealthiest 1-2%, who were the largest recipients of the Bush tax cuts started giving more to the poor as a result? The, "if only I wasn't taxed to death" argument for not giving is specious.

by: RadicalChristianLibrarian

10-16-2009 @ 6:18pm

As my former pastor, who is by no means liberal politically or socially, said, "The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

He wasn't making a plea for tithes or monetary gifts for the church or the poor (although I think that would be nice), he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

I'd really like to know, how many of the wealthiest 1-2%, who were the largest recipients of the Bush tax cuts started giving more to the poor as a result? The, "if only I wasn't taxed to death" argument for not giving is specious.