Opposition to Health-care Reform Revives Christian Right

[DjTj]

No ,Jesus was more interested in setting up a world based on his teachings....voting would then take care of itself.

If Jesus were able to set up a world completely based on his teachings, I don't think we would need voting...

Once you continue to separate down from religious to Christian to evangelicals are you surprised ?

Since they are more numerous in certain cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic areas

Well, that is really the point I'm trying to make - that being Christian doesn't really have anything to do with your stance on health care. People support or oppose health care based on many different reasons, and many of those are related to the church they attend, and their activism on health care may be organized through their church or through people they know from church, but unlike abortion or gay marriage or other social issues, nobody is really pointing to the Bible and saying that you are going to hell if you support health care reform.

Perhaps you should try to understand better what the Religious right is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Demographics

The Christian right is not made up completely (or even mostly) of evangelical Christians. According to an article in the November 11, 2004 issue of The Economist, entitled "The Triumph of the Religious Right", "The implication of these findings is that Mr. Bush's moral majority is not, as is often thought, composed of a bunch of right-wing evangelical Christians. Rather, it consists of traditionalist and observant church-goers of every kind: Catholic and mainline Protestant, as well as evangelicals, Mormons, and Sign Followers. Meanwhile, modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic."

If you define the "Religious right" as "people on the right who are religious," then of course the exact same people voting for Bush in 2004 will be marching against health care reform in 2009. But I think the "Religious Right" has a more narrow meaning, and it is centered around evangelicals.

Catholics are pretty evenly divided, and there are black evangelical churches that can be very liberal, but the "Religious Right" really defines a movement started by people like Jerry Falwell in the 1960's that was centered in evangelical churches. The movement has been defined by groups like Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, and as mentioned in the original article, Focus on the Family. The fact that FoF is taking on the cause of opposing health care reform seems to be more based on the cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic factors underlying their constituency rather than any religious motivations.

[DjTj]

Yes, there are religous liberals, and the brooks study also says that they too donate less than conservative religous folks.

Do you have a link for that? This seems to suggest otherwise:

After controlling for a lot of things that you might not want to control for (i.e., being religious or secular), Brooks concludes that “liberals and conservatives are not distinguishable” in whether they have made any donation in the last year. This is literally true, but he fails to note that in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

[NavyDave]

What is your position on health care? Forgive me, but I cannot remember your exact stance. And knowing how Christ approached his healing and his attitude towards the poor, is it affected by this?

So liberals, cough atheists cough,only bring up god and giving when they want to equate punitive taxes and out of control spending.

[mardi gras skin]

So if you control for religion, it turns out that liberals do donate just slightly more. This means that non-religious liberals donate slightly more than non-religious conservatives, and religious liberals donate slightly more than religious conservatives. Conservatives still come out ahead in total donations, however, because there are a lot more religious conservatives, and religious people donate a lot more than non-religious people.

Ha! That is the most interesting rebuttal I have ever heard on this issue. The reason conservatives donate more to charity than liberals is that liberals have so many non-religious people weighing them down. If not for the heathens, liberals would be generous too! I doubt many non-religious liberals would be comfortable with this defense.

Here's another take:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

and an example that stands out as a stark dividing line in how each side views charity.

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

[Vicious]

So liberals, cough atheists cough,only bring up god and giving when they want to equate punitive taxes and out of control spending.

Implying Liberals are atheists. Sorry, but plenty of people on both sides drink the kool-aid.

[Vicious]

I'm not quite sure of your point? Where have I referenced evangelicals at all?

Yes, there are religous liberals, and the brooks study also says that they too donate less than conservative religous folks.

You are losing this one pretty badly my friend, best to stop now.

Average income is lowered severely due to the south. Donations are counted from CEO's and those that funded the rise of the NeoCon and the tax cuts for the rich.

Also, isn't sloth a sin?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/new-study-republicans-are-more-obese-than-democrats/blog-78933/

[The Sisko]

Nothing in this response even came close to my original point to you, which is that you are baking in the assumption that health care reform is of course a net good, and of course Christian opponents know it, so obviously are selfish, small-minded hypocrites that value their own money over the welfare of others, and don't care what Jesus said if its inconvenient.

I think there's an implicit assumption in your reasoning that you're also missing. Namely that the opposition actually understands what they're opposing. From the town hall circuses and the rhetoric we've seen such as the continued belief in nonsense like death panels, I think it's safe to say that not only do they not understand what they're opposing, but that the lack of understanding comes from a willful, self imposed ignorance.

That's just way too many assumptions, and so unless you ask somebody, and he says "Yes, I am a selfish **** that will condemn children to die that could have been saved by nationalized health insurance, because it means I'd lose 100 extra dollars a month out of my pocket, and screw Jesus too", I'd suggest you put down the paint brush and find another rhetorical point to try to ram home.

Here's where you go off the tracks a bit. The primary credible, and I believe valid, complaint about the healthcare reform that's been proposed is that it won't deliver on the cost savings it promises. If you look at Medicare, it absolutely does deliver on patient satisfaction (higher scores than private coverage) and universal coverage. The primary problem with Medicare is cost. Therefore, given the lack of well reasoned opposition from this crowd as I said above, I think the view as you describe it "I'd lose 100 extra dollars a month out of my pocket, and screw Jesus too" is pretty close to the truth.

For clarity's sake I'm not saying or even implying that the more money-screw Jesus calculus you describe is what's actually going on in the heads of the religious right. Rather, I think it's where they've been led by their leadership and the aforementioned willful ignorance on the part of the individual involved.

You ever stop to consider that the war spending (as wasteful as it might have been), is why we can't afford the health care package? Does it really make sense to say that because we spent a lot before, we can spend a lot now?

I hear that argument being used by fighting couples ("He just bought an Xbox, and he won't even let me buy one Coach bag"), and it just has never made any sense to me.

Again, there's a problem with the basic reasoning here. As I said above, the only problem I have with healthcare reform is with the promised savings. However, your analogy above is a poor one because it assumes that costs won't increase if we do nothing. This is clearly not the case and we will either go broke or incur higher taxes if we do nothing.

Slick Willie knew of the issues with the system as did W. and the GOP after him. Instead of taking on the dangerous political issue of trying to reform the system, the GOP instead added to the problem by adding a drug benefit and then stepped away. This past abrogation of responsibility by the GOP as well as the current conspicuous absence of opposing ideas with a President who's open to them, is what has led us to this false notion of the Dems "ramming healthcare reform down everyone's throats."

for all opposed to health care reform.

Please sign a legal document so hospitals can legally

refuse you care.

You will die quickly and save money for everyone else

Thank You

The rest of us.

Thats off my chest now flame away

If you want to call it that, then I'm going to flame you on this. It's stupid and is the type of comment I'd expect out of the religious right wackjobs. Knock it off.

[twa]

I think it's safe to say that not only do they not understand what they're opposing, but that the lack of understanding comes from a willful, self imposed ignorance.

The usual Liberal mantra....We know what's best for you ignorant hicks,Trust us.:no:

But go ahead..... Rham it through Congress:hysterical:

[SkinsHokieFan]

The usual Liberal mantra....We know what's best for you ignorant hicks,Trust us.:no:

But go ahead..... Rham it through Congress:hysterical:

Even better: We know how to spend your money better then you do

[twa]

Even better: We know how to spend your money better then you do

No peasant...the People's money;)

Stalin's tactics and now claiming Jesus's endorsement....prostrate yourself before your betters and acknowledge your place tea bagger:chair:

[mardi gras skin]

The book DjTj cited really is pertinent to this discussion.

You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Clearly, religious conservatives are not less generous than non-religious liberals. That's just a fact. So for religious conservatives this isn't an issue of being selfish. They are already giving their money away. This is a matter of the government controlling how they give.

If liberals gave away more of their money than conservatives their reproach against greed and hypocrisy would carry more weight.

[twa]

The book DjTj cited really is pertinent to this discussion.

Clearly, religious conservatives are not less generous than non-religious liberals. That's just a fact. So for religious conservatives this isn't an issue of being selfish. They are already giving their money away. This is a matter of the government controlling how they give.

If liberals gave away more of their money than conservatives their reproach against greed and hypocrisy would carry more weight.

Fair point...I give a very large percentage of my income and time to other individuals by my choice.

I think I do a much better job of helping others than the govt can or will

I also think it is not my place to tell you what to do with the money you earn or your time...Nor the govt's place except for essentials.

[nonniey]

Actually, the real result coming from Arthur Brooks's study (and which is probably more relevant to the topic of this thread) is that people who are religious donate more and volunteer more than those that are non-religious. If you take out the religion factor, liberals actually donate more than conservatives.

http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

So if you control for religion, it turns out that liberals do donate just slightly more. This means that non-religious liberals donate slightly more than non-religious conservatives, and religious liberals donate slightly more than religious conservatives. Conservatives still come out ahead in total donations, however, because there are a lot more religious conservatives, and religious people donate a lot more than non-religious people.

Well, that is an interesting method for controlling Statistics. But you failed to point something out from that study . The bulk of liberal charitable donations go to higher education foundations that generally do little for the poor. So, if you take those donations out, liberals donate virtually nothing.

[Larry]

Fair point...I give a very large percentage of my income and time to other individuals by my choice.

I think I do a much better job of helping others than the govt can or will

OT, but something I remember reading, years ago.

For every dollar the government hands out in welfare, it spends, IIR, about $1.25 on overhead and administration.

Now, private charities are required to publish their books, so there are records publicly available about how much money private charaties actually give to the poor, and how much they spend on salaries, overhead, and fundraising. (A lot of charities spend a lot of the money they take in, on trying to solicit people to give them more money.)

Supposedly, every year, one of the best charities, in terms of "how much of the money you give them actually makes it to the poor?" is . . .

The Salvation Army, which typically spends 1-2% of the money they take in on salaries, overhead, and fundraising.

Now, I'm well aware that comparing the overhead expenses of the Salvation Army against the Federal Government is like comparing apples to aircraft carriers. (And that the Salvation Army isn't your typical private charity, either. I've read that there are many, famous, private charities who spend more than half of the money they take in, on solicitation for more money.)

But if you wanted to use that slanted statistic, you could claim that private charity is much more efficient than the government.

[The Sisko]

The usual Liberal mantra....We know what's best for you ignorant hicks,Trust us.:no:

But go ahead..... Rham it through Congress:hysterical:

LOL. Funny stuffs!

However it's as wrong as it is funny. If the so-called ignorant hicks were raising valid points, I'd say so and I'd bet Obama would acknowlege it and work to resolve their concerns. Now certainly the folks doing the yelling at the town halls may not all be hicks. However their continued parroting of foolishness like death panels, mandated abortion spending certainly does a great job of proving their ignorance of the issues.

As for the "Rhamming" it through Congress goes, politically the Dems have little to lose by doing so. They lose anyway if they allow this to be derailed so they might as well go for it.

[twa]

So, if you take those donations out, liberals donate virtually nothing.

Balderdash.(always wanted to use that;))

Liberals love to donate others money:silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

So liberals, cough atheists cough,only bring up god and giving when they want to equate punitive taxes and out of control spending.

So those "liberals" are just atheists eh? Well sorry to rain on your parade, but you're full of it.

*edit

What's even more funny is that many Christians like talking about "God and country" when its all about patriotism and militarism, but the second it comes to health care then God conveniently disappears from their part of the discussion. And trust me, it doesn't take a Christian to see the hypocrisy in that.

[techboy]

Yusuf06, since you persist in maintaining your ability as a long-distance mindreader, I'll stop posting about it and let you read my mind for any further responses. I figure one at a time should be a lot easier than millions at once, right?

[Vicious]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112688705

You see, the thing about this is it's really simple. The Republicans can not, can not allow the Democrats to put through a good health care plan. There is no civilized country that has ever went back to a fully privatized system of health care. Our health care system currently is trash, we pay too much to too many people and get our **** slashed at the first sign of trouble. If the Democrats push this through and it becomes a success with the people.. (Don't let the government mess with my medicade emirite) which it will inevitably be, then the Republicans are done for awhile. They need to cripple this thing for the 2010 elections, even though it'll help their voters the most.

So next time you want to argue for or against these reforms, think about where you have gotten your frame of mind. You trust the Government enough to protect your lives with it's fantastic military, I know I do at least. Why not trust the Government to protect your life here? That's what this is about, protecting American lives. This is not about buying cars, houses, boats and whatever other gizmos and gadgets you can think of. This is about healing diseases and damage to your human body. This government is not made up of shadowy figures preparing to slash you to save money, ending your life. It's made up of (especially in the D.C. area) your neighbors and friends, who are going to get to go to bat for you without the hassle of a bottom line.

[twa]

LOL. Funny stuffs!

However it's as wrong as it is funny. If the so-called ignorant hicks were raising valid points, I'd say so and I'd bet Obama would acknowlege it and work to resolve their concerns. Now certainly the folks doing the yelling at the town halls may not all be hicks. However their continued parroting of foolishness like death panels, mandated abortion spending certainly does a great job of proving their ignorance of the issues.

As for the "Rhamming" it through Congress goes, politically the Dems have little to lose by doing so. They lose anyway if they allow this to be derailed so they might as well go for it.

Funny that the end of life consultations as well as verification of alien status CHANGED in the proposals....But I guess they are just humoring the hicks eh?

Before long he might address the costs,real death panels and effects on private policies as well as freedoms(IF the hicks keep making foolish noise )

I don't hold out much hope on the abortion bit though

If they think there is nothing to lose,what is the hold up?:evilg:

Added

Is factcheck ignorant as well?

The non-partisan Web site, Factcheck.org agreed in its own analysis of the bill.

“Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans,” the analysis said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53857

[The Sisko]

Yusuf06, since you persist in maintaining your ability as a long-distance mindreader, I'll stop posting about it and let you read my mind for any further responses. I figure one at a time should be a lot easier than millions at once, right?

Okaaay...:fortune:...I'm getting something...what's that? You've seen the light! Excellent, I'm glad we were able to convince you to get on board with Obamacare.

[Johnny Punani]

So those "liberals" are just atheists eh? Well sorry to rain on your parade, but you're full of it.

*edit

What's even more funny is that many Christians like talking about "God and country" when its all about patriotism and militarism, but the second it comes to health care then God conveniently disappears from their part of the discussion. And trust me, it doesn't take a Christian to see the hypocrisy in that.

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

Yeah.

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?

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. 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.

[Kunia5]

As a federal employee, and an enthusiasic voter for President Obama, I still can see faults in the plan he's pushing.

The demand for medical services is infinite; the supply is finite.

Federal employees still have the option of "health savings accounts," where you basically you save money given to you by the gov't, and it accumulates year after year. It also has automatic catastrophic coverage. Nobody I know uses it. Everybody just signs up for the BC/BS or Aetna.

John Stoessel knows more about health care than Jesus. If people could comparison shop, and you could check out doctors and hospitals in "Consumers Reports," then the total bill would start to shrink. BC/BS and Aetna would have to compete for your dollar.

Trouble is, with a nation-wide private scheme, everybody would have to pay-- just like with car insurance. If you had shirkers, illegals, or fools who opted out, we would all end up paying for them anyway.

Any real solution to medical costs will have to:

a) completely get rid of insurance companies, and put everbody on Medicare, (which will eventually involve some kind of rationing, sorry) or

have a John Stoessel-type market system (which would be a nightmare to run, but more efficient in the long term).

To save any money it is going to have to be one or the other.

[Smoot Point Really]

There are 150 million "liberals"

That is why we have a "Liberal" president.

Stop blinding me with science... Does anyone else here believe that there are 150 million "liberals" in the United States?

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

Yeah.

The point NavyDave made was stupid, he said nothing about "most" instead he labeled all those who were pushing for it as Liberal atheists which is just dumb, and I can't believe you're defending it.

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?

I don't believe that the "Christian Right" is against healthcare, but their hypocrisy shows when they had the opportunity to reform the system and didn't. The "Christian Right" formed its morality as "anti-gay anti-abortion" and didn't give a darn about the multitude of other moral issues facing our nation, and now when they could actually be bringing ideas and reforms to the discussion what do they do? They jump right back in bed with the GOP and act as obstructionists. Sure some give money to healthcare for the poor but its a drop in the bucket to what is needed, what's more is why aren't they out denouncing the dumping of poor patients by the very hospitals which carry the names of the very denominations that they belong to and hefting that burden to the state?

The "Christian Right" is more concerned with opposing Obama than they are about providing healthcare reform for those who need 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.

You want to talk "personal morality" fine, but I challenge you to find where it is in opposition to Christian morality. Scripture is completely silent on this issue of healthcare reform. Some talk state that it is the church's responsibility to do these things yet, the church ISN'T doing these things on the scale of the need, so we have a choice; 1) accept the status quo 2) use the ability of our representative gov't to manage a program to provide healthcare to those in need as an extension of our own desire to help them in need.

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.

That's fine, and a perfectly legitimate argument, but you certainly don't need the "Christian Right" to rise up to make this argument, because that argument is a secular argument about the view of limited government, not a moral argument.