Opposition to Health-care Reform Revives Christian Right

[The Sisko]

I do think this is one of those issues where an actual friendly relationship with the involved parties could go a long way to avoid any misunderstandings, and a lot of the vitriol. I wonder again, for instance, how many of the people objecting to the religious right actually personally know and are on friendly terms with anybody in the religious right in real life.

...I suspect a little real life interaction (not at a protest yelling at each other) could go a long way here, though it's hard, because people always have a tendency to self-segregate.

Agreed. My best friend and fraternity brother is an evangelical Christian. He's never been anything but supportive of our differences of opinion on many topics over the years. Of course we also had/have in common being black republicans so I suppose it helps that we're not all that different in many of our positions.

A lot of the folks I know and work with on a daily basis are "good ole boys" and I've had some pretty good discussions with them as well. However, I must say that my ES personality is slightly less confrontational than my in-person counterpart. From the other end, I sometimes get the impression that there's a certain level of restraint as well. That kind of makes what goes on here a breath of fresh air in some ways.

In any event, with a very few exceptions, I hope you and most others that I've gotten into it with know that it's all about the ideas, not about the individuals involved. As Asbury said, I'd gladly share a beer with almost all of you.

[Destino]

This thread is hilarious. Trying to justify REPUBLICAN christianity is just sad. Good to see these people have found a righteous cause to rally around. Maybe next they'll get all energized about opposing food stamps.

[Jumbo]

It's interesting. My guess is that everybody here probably assumes I'm against nationalized health insurance, because I'm an evangelical Christian and a libertarian...

Is that why you also hate puppies, kitties and baseball?

[Baculus]

Do most atheists have marxist/progressive/liberal political ideologies?

Yeah.

Please do not mash-up "marxist/progressive/liberal" as one ideology, because it is inaccurate. Please consult something Google to at least undrerstand a little bit more about these ideologies (something I wish more people on the Right would do -- at least learn the basics of the argument).

Do you honestly believe that these people are against healthcare considering these same people give millions to charities some of which provide healthcare to the poor?

Do these people really give to charities that provide health care to the poor?

Where do the poor generally go for their health care if they do not have Medicaid? A hospital or a free clinic ? Who generally funds and supports these?

If the poor/uninsure do receive charitable care from a religious-related organization, it's probably from people such as the Catholics or men such as Rev. Jim Wallis -- the religious "left" -- who have ethical/social justice attitude towards the poor and health care.

Yes, when these people oppose programs such as SCHIP that provide actually health care to children, then yes, I believe they are against health care, or at least certain provisioning of it.

Maybe you don't understand that these people are against the progressive idea of healthcare reform because they have concerns that certain aspects of such a plan would run counter to their own personal morality.

What "personal morality"? It can't be opposition to state interventionism, because they have certainly support such interventionism in the past when it supports their own moral imperative.

Also, there are many that believe such a plan violates the principals of the US Constitution because it limits individual freedoms through control of access to healthcare resources and places restrictions on one's personal wealth through increased taxation.

It is convenient how people are suddenly noticing the "Constitution." When faith based organizations were receiving millions of federal dollars (like they still do under Obama), they weren't worried about Constitutional constraints. When they support socially restrictive conservative laws, they don't seem hindered by Constitutional constraints and the Bill of Rights.

But now they worry about the Constitution?

I don't buy it when they have acted to individual freedoms. That's why I roll my eyes when all these right-wing authoritarians, such as Limbaugh, talk about "freedom" when they would restrict someone else's freedom if it sits their need.

And not only that, but H.R. 3200 fully preserves the private insurance market. Especially if the health care exchange is created, it is possible that citizens will have even more individual choice then they currently have. That is the irony of your entire argument.

And restrictions on our wealth currently exist -- why do you think real wages have flat lined during this debate? Why do you think the gap between the wealth and every else has widened during this decade? Health care is one reason: The more a company has to pay for its employees health care, then the smaller a raise they can provide for these same people.

I didn't hear anything "Constitutional" complaints from the wealthy when the $1.2 trillion dollar Bush tax cut was passed.

[Destino]

Is that why you also hate puppies, kitties and baseball?

whoa whoa whoa... lets not go putting baseball in the same list with kitties and puppies. Baseball is something worth hating.

[Jumbo]

whoa whoa whoa... lets not go putting baseball in the same list with kitties and puppies. Baseball is something worth hating.

Yeh, it didn't feel right at the time, either.

[Jumbo]

[The Sisko]

Jumbo, you could have my firstborn if you make that pic (sans the horns and such) NavyDave's permanent avatar. Just PM me for a binding contract.

[Johnny Punani]

Please do not mash-up "marxist/progressive/liberal" as one ideology, because it is inaccurate. Please consult something Google to at least undrerstand a little bit more about these ideologies (something I wish more people on the Right would do -- at least learn the basics of the argument).

I never said it was one ideology. However, today it is pretty common for marxists to call themselves progressives & liberals. Also, people who think they have a liberal political ideology but routinely support marxist political agendas are pretty common as well.

Do these people really give to charities that provide health care to the poor?

Yes they provide funding and medical supplies to healthcare clinics in the US and around the World.

Where do the poor generally go for their health care if they do not have Medicaid? A hospital or a free clinic ? Who generally funds and supports these?

They get private and public funding. So what does that prove?

If the poor/uninsure do receive charitable care from a religious-related organization, it's probably from people such as the Catholics or men such as Rev. Jim Wallis -- the religious "left" -- who have ethical/social justice attitude towards the poor and health care.

Then where does the vast majority of funds donated by faith based orgs come from since the religious left is a small minority?

Yes, when these people oppose programs such as SCHIP that provide actually health care to children, then yes, I believe they are against health care, or at least certain provisioning of it.

http://www.piconetwork.org/news-media/news/archive?id=0283

PICO statement on Senate SCHIP plan

Over the next eleven weeks PICO will continue mobilizing our congregations to make sure that Washington follows the will of the people. Over the past six weeks PICO and the National Council of Churches have generated more than 10,000 calls and e-mails to Congress on SCHIP."

PICO National Network is a network of 53 faith-based federations and 1,000 congregations in 150 cities and 18 states working to revitalize communities and strengthen families.

What "personal morality"? It can't be opposition to state interventionism, because they have certainly support such interventionism in the past when it supports their own moral imperative.

No, I think it has a lot to do with their tax dollars possibly funding medical policies and procedures they personally believe are morally wrong.

It is convenient how people are suddenly noticing the "Constitution." When faith based organizations were receiving millions of federal dollars (like they still do under Obama), they weren't worried about Constitutional constraints. When they support socially restrictive conservative laws, they don't seem hindered by Constitutional constraints and the Bill of Rights.

But now they worry about the Constitution?

I don't buy it when they have acted to individual freedoms. That's why I roll my eyes when all these right-wing authoritarians, such as Limbaugh, talk about "freedom" when they would restrict someone else's freedom if it sits their need.

And not only that, but H.R. 3200 fully preserves the private insurance market. Especially if the health care exchange is created, it is possible that citizens will have even more individual choice then they currently have. That is the irony of your entire argument.

And restrictions on our wealth currently exist -- why do you think real wages have flat lined during this debate? Why do you think the gap between the wealth and every else has widened during this decade? Health care is one reason: The more a company has to pay for its employees health care, then the smaller a raise they can provide for these same people.

I didn't hear anything "Constitutional" complaints from the wealthy when the $1.2 trillion dollar Bush tax cut was passed.

You finished yet?

[Smoot Point Really]

You're pretty sure about a lot of things.

And you're wrong about virtually all of them.

Welcome to the Conservative party then...

[Smoot Point Really]

Jumbo, you could have my firstborn if you make that pic (sans the horns and such) NavyDave's permanent avatar. Just PM me for a binding contract.

What would Jumbo have to do for you to keep the little monster?

[alexey]

I never said it was one ideology. However, today it is pretty common for marxists to call themselves progressives & liberals. Also, people who think they have a liberal political ideology but routinely support marxist political agendas are pretty common as well.

Logic fail.

1. All men are human.
   
2. Women are human.
   
3. Therefore, women are men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

All marixists are progressive

Liberals are progressive

Therefore liberals are marxists

Mix and match these in your head and soon enough you can list them like this: marxist/progressive/liberal.

[December90]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802985.html

Nothing screams "WWJD" like rallying against healthcare for poor people!

This healthcare proposal is (being generous here) stemmed from good intentions.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Did it ever occur to any of the liberals that this plan will harm more people than it helps. Right now there is no "ceiling" on the top end of the best care that can be provided (of course at a cost). This socialist plan will put a top end ceiling in place and passively prevent the more expensive higher end care. (you know the experimental stuff that after trials and time becomes mainstream and then becomes cheaper over time)

When rich Americans get sick do they run to England or Canada to get treatment? Now when Rich Brits or Canadians get sick do they come to the U.S. for treatment? Just using those two nations as examples, but there are many more socialized medicine countries where the citizens come here to get the treatments they are denied by their "universal" coverage at home.

[Larry]

whoa whoa whoa... lets not go putting baseball in the same list with kitties and puppies. Baseball is something worth hating.

Baseball isn't worth hating. Baseball is only worth falling asleep during.

Now, soccer, with it's pretentious claim of calling itself football, now that's worth hating.

[Larry]

Right now there is no "ceiling" on the top end of the best care that can be provided (of course at a cost). This socialist plan will put a top end ceiling in place and passively prevent the more expensive higher end care. (you know the experimental stuff that after trials and time becomes mainstream and then becomes cheaper over time)

That's got to be the biggest lie I've ever seen posted about this proposal.

There is nothing whatsoever in this proposal that would prohibit any treatment in the world, to any person in the world.

There are simply procedures that the taxpayers won't pay for.

[techboy]

I didn't hear anything "Constitutional" complaints from the wealthy when the $1.2 trillion dollar Bush tax cut was passed.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that you see as a Constitutional issue with the Congress reducing tax rates?

[AsburySkinsFan]

This healthcare proposal is (being generous here) stemmed from good intentions.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, and that quoted directly from 1st Platitudes 1:19.

Did it ever occur to any of the liberals that this plan will harm more people than it helps. Right now there is no "ceiling" on the top end of the best care that can be provided (of course at a cost).

If you're talking about how much of a bill you can run up at the hospital then you're right, however, if you are talking about how much an insurance plan will pay of that bill then you couldn't be more wrong. Most plans today have a ceiling built into them for the care that they provide.

This socialist plan will put a top end ceiling in place and passively prevent the more expensive higher end care. (you know the experimental stuff that after trials and time becomes mainstream and then becomes cheaper over time)

Socialist plan.... The experimental stuff is not covered by the vast majority of health insurance plans.

When rich Americans get sick do they run to England or Canada to get treatment? Now when Rich Brits or Canadians get sick do they come to the U.S. for treatment? Just using those two nations as examples, but there are many more socialized medicine countries where the citizens come here to get the treatments they are denied by their "universal" coverage at home.

And what you are completely failing to realize is that Americans are going to India to get the medical treatment that their insurance won't provide for, because in an increasing number of cases the care is world class for a fraction of the cost.

http://medicaltourism.com

Sorry December, but while you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts.

That's got to be the biggest lie I've ever seen posted about this proposal.

His whole post was one long list of misinformation.

[alexey]

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Other roads may be paved with good intentions as well

[December90]

That's got to be the biggest lie I've ever seen posted about this proposal.

There is nothing whatsoever in this proposal that would prohibit any treatment in the world, to any person in the world.

There are simply procedures that the taxpayers won't pay for.

Not saying it is the intention of the proposal, but a very likely outcome. How else would you hold costs down, but to reduce or eliminate the highest costing treatments?

Conservatives and Republicans do not have the votes to stop this. All they can do is issue the warnings about what will result from the program. We better stock up on KY because what they are about to ram up our collective behind is going to be painful. Unfortunately the only thing that conservatives have are the ability to say "told you so" when this program becomes as bankrupt as Social Security and Medicare and the way to "save" it is to cut benefits. The Government subsidized program will have an unfair edge on the "competition" from free enterprise as they will be subsidized.

The Liberals have it right in one regard, when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. We are creating a nation of "Pauls" The liberal playbook is working much to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

[Larry]

Not saying it is the intention of the proposal, but a very likely outcome. How else would you hold costs down, but to reduce or eliminate the highest costing treatments?

By not paying for them?

Just like every single private insurance plan holds down costs?

But again, anybody who wants to pay for it themselves can knock themselves out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The Liberals have it right in one regard, when you rob from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. We are creating a nation of "Pauls" The liberal playbook is working much to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

And more musings from 3rd Platitudes 4:23. Turn with me in your hymnals to page 328 and stand as we sing; "God Helps Those Who Help Themselves" followed by "Cleanliness is Next to Godliness."

[Bang]

mmmm ...Cupcakes

~Bang

[Thiebear]

That's got to be the biggest lie I've ever seen posted about this proposal.

There is nothing whatsoever in this proposal that would prohibit any treatment in the world, to any person in the world.

There are simply procedures that the taxpayers won't pay for.

I'm guessing there is nuance here that i can't see.

you can have any procedure as long as its not in the Gov Spon Health Insur (GSHI) and is deemed too expensive in the ROI?

So why not just open up Medicaid to those that don't have insurance and can't afford it?

If you can afford it, you'll be sent to the Esurance site to pick one of 20 matches.

[Larry]

I'm guessing there is nuance here that i can't see.

The nuance between "the government is going to ban experimental research" and "the government won't simply pay for anything with no limit" is too subtle?

[Hooper]

Man, half the time it seems like the Christian right only seems to rally behind causes that aren't very Christian.