Christian Terrorists

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Obama has stated plainly that his goal is a single-payer system and that it will take some time to arrive at that.

What part of “single payer” is unclear to you?

You are aware that under the HillaryCare plan, it would have been a felony either for a patient to pay for a doctor’s services himself or for the doctor to accept private payment?

So please don’t say that Democrats never really mean “single payer” when they say “single payer.”[/quote]

Single payer is still not socialized medicine. The only socialized medicine in the US is the VA, and I suspect it’ll stay that way for a very long time.

Also, we aren’t talking about Hilary Care, and lumping all Dems into the same group is unfair, just like lumping all Reps into the same group would be unfair as well.

I never said that Dems never really mean “single payer” when they say “single payer”.

142

Who do you think the single payer is if not the government?

And who do you think then has the absolute and exclusive power to decide who qualifies for given care and who does not, and what procedures will be paid for and what will not?

(Or do you believe that resources are unlimited and everybody will get everything?)

On HillaryCare: if you read my post with more care it will be clear that I did not do what you are saying.

143

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s nice of you to be compassionate with other people’s money.[/quote]

I contribute with mine as well.

And, since this thread is about Christianity, how many of you actually think that Jesus would be against single payer or government (taxpayer subsidized) medicine? Just a little poll.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:41-45

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

  • 1 John 3:17-18

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” - Colossians 3:12 (for Tirib, who’s opinion I genuinely respect)

If you can give some money (in the form of taxes) to help others in need be able to get help when they are sick, then why would you not want to do so? Especially if you truly have Christ in your heart.

No one is saying that you should have to give up more than you need to survive on of course. But it seems like too many have become sick with the love of money, and have forgotten that how you treat your fellow man is how you will be judged, not how big your bank account is when you die. “No, it’s my money, I earned it. Let them take care of themselves” doesn’t sound too Christian to me personally.

I realize that I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this and be very unpopular in this forum as a result (sadly quite possibly even with some who’s respect I’d rather not give up), but the this way of thinking has really gotten to me lately and I’ve gotta stand up for what I believe. Hopefully at least some reading this will understand what I’m getting at.

144

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Who do you think the single payer is if not the government?
[/quote]

Who owns the hospitals and employs the health care workers therein? No the government, so it’s not “socialized medicine”.

Of course I don’t believe that, but do you really think that if all of the money that is going into paying the private health insurance companies went to pay for a “single payer” system instead that the government would be denying people health care left and right?

What I don’t get is that people were all up in arms because a “public option” would surely put the private insurance companies out of business (hence why they were against the idea) since the private companies couldn’t possibly compete. Yet then they turn around and pretend like an entirely public option (single payer) system would result in more expensive health insurance that would be denying people coverage left and right.

Which is it?

Is a “single payer” system more efficient and able to do the same work as a private system for less money (thus putting the private system out of business)? Or is it more expensive and would be denying people coverage due to the huge sudden lack of funds? Which btw, if this were true then what would be the opposition to trying out a "public option?

[quote]
On HillaryCare: if you read my post with more care it will be clear that I did not do what you are saying.[/quote]

You said that there would be a penalty for paying a doctor directly on Hilary care. Fine, maybe that’s true. But the recent health care bill that passed was not Hilary care, so it’s a moot point.

145

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s nice of you to be compassionate with other people’s money.[/quote]

I contribute with mine as well.

And, since this thread is about Christianity, how many of you actually think that Jesus would be against single payer or government (taxpayer subsidized) medicine? Just a little poll.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:41-45

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

  • 1 John 3:17-18

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” - Colossians 3:12 (for Tirib, who’s opinion I genuinely respect)

If you can give some money (in the form of taxes) to help others in need be able to get help when they are sick, then why would you not want to do so? Especially if you truly have Christ in your heart.

No one is saying that you should have to give up more than you need to survive on of course. But it seems like too many have become sick with the love of money, and have forgotten that how you treat your fellow man is how you will be judged, not how big your bank account is when you die. “No, it’s my money, I earned it. Let them take care of themselves” doesn’t sound too Christian to me personally.

I realize that I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this and be very unpopular in this forum as a result (sadly quite possibly even with some who’s respect I’d rather not give up), but the this way of thinking has really gotten to me lately and I’ve gotta stand up for what I believe. Hopefully at least some reading this will understand what I’m getting at.[/quote]

I would prefer to give the money that God gives me to a local organization that can keep an eye on the individuals that healthcare, food, clothing, and the like are being given to. I would prefer to have the ability to not give money to an organization if they are now corrupted by something that I am against. Giving willingly is different than being forced to give. I give to my local church, but I am forced to give to the government. If I dont like how my local church is using the money I find a new church to go to. With the federal government I have no choice. I guess you can say I have a choice but jail is really not a choice. I want to actually help the poor help themselves get out of the system, then send a check out every month for them to pick up at the mail box.

Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God. I would prefer Ceasar’s amount to be less so I can give more to God.

146

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Who do you think the single payer is if not the government?
[/quote]

Who owns the hospitals and employs the health care workers therein? No the government, so it’s not “socialized medicine”.[/quote]

As always, definitions of words are key to accurate communication.

I myself would prefer that the usage of “socialized” be limited to actual government ownership of means of production, but in terms of how people around the world use the term, it is NOT the case that the term is so limited.

It would be more precise to refer to such a system – where the government has absolute control of who gets treated and how and much the provider is paid – as “fascist” but most people would not understand what was meant.

In practice, when the government has the sole power to decide who gets treated and what services will be paid for and how much will be paid, the fact that they don’t hold ownership makes no difference to the person wishing to engage in free commerce for their health care but who is prevented from doing so.

You can call it “not socialist” for the government to have this degree of control and to be the sole payer, and you will find me agreeing with you on technical usage, but in practical terms with regard to communication with people in general, it’s socialistic.

[quote][quote]
And who do you think then has the absolute and exclusive power to decide who qualifies for given care and who does not, and what procedures will be paid for and what will not?

(Or do you believe that resources are unlimited and everybody will get everything?)
[/quote]

Of course I don’t believe that, but do you really think that if all of the money that is going into paying the private health insurance companies went to pay for a “single payer” system instead that the government would be denying people health care left and right? [/quote]

The government will be denying people according to the difference between supply provided at the price paid by the government, vs amount demanded by the consumers who are required to pay nothing or very little from their own funds.

In practice this usually works out as denial by means of wait lists, similarly to how when gasoline is rationed, the person who gets the gasoline is the one who starts waiting in line at 9 o’clock the night before he needs gas to get to work.

When money is not the factor that balances amount willingly supplied vs amount demanded, waiting becomes that factor.

Name me the socialized (in the general sense of the term) health care system in any country in the world that shows me wrong, or explain why THIS TIME it will be different?

But yes, also there will be outright denial. As seen in other countries with socialized medicine.

Government doesn’t manage money well. The budget will soon not match demand and the only thing to do will be to not allow various things, according to the judgment of government employees and officials.

[quote][quote]
On HillaryCare: if you read my post with more care it will be clear that I did not do what you are saying.[/quote]

You said that there would be a penalty for paying a doctor directly on Hilary care. Fine, maybe that’s true. But the recent health care bill that passed was not Hilary care, so it’s a moot point.[/quote]

My point was that Democrats are capable of finding it entirely reasonable to make it a felony for people to arrange for their own health care at their own expense. That doesn’t mean any individual Democrat will do it, but it proves that it is not out of the question that a Democrat system will reach that point.

147

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
<<< And, since this thread is about Christianity, how many of you actually think that Jesus would be against single payer or government (taxpayer subsidized) medicine? Just a little poll. >>>[/quote]
Trib’s hand shoots up in the air.

Sento, I like ya man. We’ve been friends here for a number years now and as far it depends on me that will continue, but you are lost in this discussion.

Everything you’ve brought up here has been addressed like a hundred times each.

As for Jesus and secular socialism? NO NO NO, a thousand times NO!!! There IS plain communism taught in the New Testament WITHIN THE CHURCH and VOLUNTARILY participated in by Christians. There is also much said about caring for genuine social need at large, VOLUNTARILY as seen fit by individuals with their own money. This perversion of the Bible whereby it is proclaimed that government is commissioned to care for the poor and or provide for peoples needs in any way is just that. A rank perversion. Nowhere is it taught that ROME, which was the civil magistrate at that time was to be looked to for the provision of human need in any area though Godly obedience and the payment of taxes is required.

Face this fact once and for all my friend. This world will never ever be fair and equal for all people. EVER. The genius of this country was that it put the rise or fall of peoples lives into their own hands for the greatest number and in the freest way of any system that has still ever been tried. As soon as you give a select few the power to confiscate one man’s means for the purpose of supplementing another’s you have laid the foundation for social and economic disaster which is exactly how we have gotten exactly where we are now.

148

What?

I was pretty sure that Jesus had said “Render unto Caesar that he may supply for the poor,” and also that he founded Liberation Theology. Did I get bad info?

149

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What?

I was pretty sure that Jesus had said “Render unto Caesar that he may supply for the poor,” and also that he founded Liberation Theology. Did I get bad info?[/quote]

I missed that one also. Can you put up a link from Wikipedia so we can verify?

150

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
What?

I was pretty sure that Jesus had said “Render unto Caesar that he may supply for the poor,” and also that he founded Liberation Theology. Did I get bad info?[/quote]
Yes, you did indeed get very very bad info. The civil government system launched at the founding of the United States was the closest to Christian yet attempted in human history. Even Bradford and his crew when they arrived on this continent 400 years ago temporarily fell into the psuedo Christian communism thing for a time, but saw the error of their ways.

151

[quote]pat wrote:
Timothy McVeigh was agnostic terrorist. That must mean that agnostics are terrorists, but the virtue of being agnostics.[/quote]

Agnosticism and atheism aren’t planned out thought systems that control every facet of your life. This card is tired and frankly, just poor.

152

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
<<< I would prefer to give the money that God gives me to a local organization that can keep an eye on the individuals that healthcare, food, clothing, and the like are being given to. I would prefer to have the ability to not give money to an organization if they are now corrupted by something that I am against. Giving willingly is different than being forced to give. I give to my local church, but I am forced to give to the government. If I dont like how my local church is using the money I find a new church to go to. With the federal government I have no choice. I guess you can say I have a choice but jail is really not a choice. I want to actually help the poor help themselves get out of the system, then send a check out every month for them to pick up at the mail box.

Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God. I would prefer Ceasar’s amount to be less so I can give more to God.[/quote]
I didn’t see this post before I posted mine. You do understand that that would mean freedom right? After all we’ve done to curb that unjust and unchristian practice you wanna go back now?

153

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s nice of you to be compassionate with other people’s money.[/quote]

I contribute with mine as well.

And, since this thread is about Christianity, how many of you actually think that Jesus would be against single payer or government (taxpayer subsidized) medicine? Just a little poll.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:41-45

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

  • 1 John 3:17-18

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” - Colossians 3:12 (for Tirib, who’s opinion I genuinely respect)

If you can give some money (in the form of taxes) to help others in need be able to get help when they are sick, then why would you not want to do so? Especially if you truly have Christ in your heart.

No one is saying that you should have to give up more than you need to survive on of course. But it seems like too many have become sick with the love of money, and have forgotten that how you treat your fellow man is how you will be judged, not how big your bank account is when you die. “No, it’s my money, I earned it. Let them take care of themselves” doesn’t sound too Christian to me personally.

I realize that I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this and be very unpopular in this forum as a result (sadly quite possibly even with some who’s respect I’d rather not give up), but the this way of thinking has really gotten to me lately and I’ve gotta stand up for what I believe. Hopefully at least some reading this will understand what I’m getting at.[/quote]

I would prefer to give the money that God gives me to a local organization that can keep an eye on the individuals that healthcare, food, clothing, and the like are being given to. I would prefer to have the ability to not give money to an organization if they are now corrupted by something that I am against. Giving willingly is different than being forced to give. I give to my local church, but I am forced to give to the government. If I dont like how my local church is using the money I find a new church to go to. With the federal government I have no choice. I guess you can say I have a choice but jail is really not a choice. I want to actually help the poor help themselves get out of the system, then send a check out every month for them to pick up at the mail box.

Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God. I would prefer Ceasar’s amount to be less so I can give more to God.[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying and can’t say that I disagree with your line of thought. But, you do also have others option when it comes to government, and they are moving to a different country if you don’t like the one that you are currently residing in, or voting in new leadership come next election who will (hopefully at least) change things more to your liking.

154

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It’s nice of you to be compassionate with other people’s money.[/quote]

I contribute with mine as well.

And, since this thread is about Christianity, how many of you actually think that Jesus would be against single payer or government (taxpayer subsidized) medicine? Just a little poll.

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.” Matthew 25:41-45

“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

  • 1 John 3:17-18

“Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” - Colossians 3:12 (for Tirib, who’s opinion I genuinely respect)

If you can give some money (in the form of taxes) to help others in need be able to get help when they are sick, then why would you not want to do so? Especially if you truly have Christ in your heart.

No one is saying that you should have to give up more than you need to survive on of course. But it seems like too many have become sick with the love of money, and have forgotten that how you treat your fellow man is how you will be judged, not how big your bank account is when you die. “No, it’s my money, I earned it. Let them take care of themselves” doesn’t sound too Christian to me personally.

I realize that I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this and be very unpopular in this forum as a result (sadly quite possibly even with some who’s respect I’d rather not give up), but the this way of thinking has really gotten to me lately and I’ve gotta stand up for what I believe. Hopefully at least some reading this will understand what I’m getting at.[/quote]

I would prefer to give the money that God gives me to a local organization that can keep an eye on the individuals that healthcare, food, clothing, and the like are being given to. I would prefer to have the ability to not give money to an organization if they are now corrupted by something that I am against. Giving willingly is different than being forced to give. I give to my local church, but I am forced to give to the government. If I dont like how my local church is using the money I find a new church to go to. With the federal government I have no choice. I guess you can say I have a choice but jail is really not a choice. I want to actually help the poor help themselves get out of the system, then send a check out every month for them to pick up at the mail box.

Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God. I would prefer Ceasar’s amount to be less so I can give more to God.[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying and can’t say that I disagree with your line of thought. But, you do also have others option when it comes to government, and they are moving to a different country if you don’t like the one that you are currently residing in, or voting in new leadership come next election who will (hopefully at least) change things more to your liking.[/quote]

I agree. That is what is so good about this country. No one person can rule the country. Our founding fathers fought to have freedom from one person, Monarchy, rule. I think they came up with a great system of rule. I wish they would have put in term limits, but we can always change that.