Jump to content

Obama healthcare... whats the fuss?


King Rat

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Regardless of government spending, overall health expenditure in the U.S. per capita is about 2 and a half times that of the average OECD country.

 

 

That's a management/big-corporations-having-a-field-day issue. It's not a blight on the socialized model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The Christianity thing is a bit of a rabbit-trail, but I really have to respond to this:

 

 

As far as the hole "you're not Christian if you don't like this bill" claim goes, that is just plain idiotic. Christ taught to help others. This is a personal choice. It is for our personal benefit to help others because we will be blessed and learn great things from it such as humility. This healthcare bill takes the choice right out of it and FORCES people to give money that is supposedly going to help others. Giving aid because you are forced to gives you nothing, just as Christ taught. If we are not helping people out of our own free will, it means absolutely nothing in the eyes of God.

 

 

Not really. You're missing it. It is true that God favours the willing heart; sincerity and love above all. But that is far from the whole story; He does not prefer inaction in the absence of fondness. Rather, obedience is as important as willingness. In fact, Christ says that "those who love me, obey my commands." The implication is clear: actions speak louder than warm fuzzies.

 

So, it's not that Christians should support this bill; there might be a better way of going about it. Rather, it would seem to me that Christians should not be categorically opposed to a socialized health care. One would have no Biblical grounds for such a posture, and that, my friend, is a contradiction in terms.

 

Keep in mind, several things:

 

1) Christians are commanded to follow the law of the land (Romans 13). This pleases God.

 

In fact, in the Old Testament, commandments were given that ensured provision for the poor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

this thread is long.

 

I don't think measures were taken to fight the rising cost of insurance because I believe that rather than the government coming out and saying "this is the new USA universal health care company!" they will hire already existing insurance companies to carry out the system.

 

This is why there was lobbying on both sides and the lack of "transparency"/

 

There are probably people close to the president who are starting their little health insurance companies right now, just waiting to make millions from some kind of government run health care.

 

I believe that's what the compromise was.

we may destroy your private business, but stick with us. You will become a government run entity and we will supply you with unlimited customers and the money to pay for their care.

 

Someone will profit from this and it won't be any of us.

 

It's like your little brother who just wanted to help, but then completely destroyed the pedal you were trying to fix.

 

I appreciate your help government, but was this 2000 page bill the way to do it?

 

Like I said in the other thread.

I guess we'll just have to sit back and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You're saying healthcare, where all contribute so no one looses out, is WRONG?


Dude, go back and read Acts 2. Even the model of the church is a socialist one. Everyone helps, so people are taken care of.


You feel that these "entitlements" INCLUDE library books and fixing potholes, but NOT making sure an impoverished baby with a heart murmur gets looked after?


Where is Christ in that, my friend?


And I suppose it is mere coincidence that the USA's non-social healthcare is ranked 37th, while every country above it has a socialized program?


Must be coincidence.


Ben,
You and I can hang out together. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
This is the type of post that will get this thread shut down or moved.


Not because of your POV on the matter, but because you don't post anything in support of your charges, position and opinions, and primarily use your post to hurl invectives at those who have an opposing POV.



You're the one allowing a political thread in the HCFX forum. :confused:

Common sense doesn't need explained. Well, to most of us anyway. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
lol


:wave:



:wave::cool:

Back to the topic.

I've been sifting through the thread and I've seen some great points on both sides of the debate. Here's my take on things so far...

Rather than trying to control the behavior of payers and providers through mandates and price controls, the government should give patients the financial support they need and allow them to choose from a variety of insurance coverage options (according to their needs). This is the same system available to President Obama and all other federal employees. It's just an EPIC {censored}ing :facepalm:

If healthcare is going to be socialized, then shouldn't representatives be using the same plan that is offered to their constituants?

The goal of reform, IMO, should be for the government to stop trying to design and operate public health insurance plans and instead focus on providing disadvantaged individuals with the necessary funds to buy into the same system that everyone else uses. Government representatives are among the least qualified individuals to develop a new system, IMO, considering they won't even be using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you gentlemen. I'll be interested in reading more about that; including their ranking criteria / methodology. I appreciate the citation.

 

 

No prob! I'm not one to throw around made up statistics... though, maybe I should start!

 

60% of the time it works, every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...