Health Care for America Now

Socialized medicine by our federal government would not result in a betterment of our society. God's plan for charity between brothers and sisters in Christ would best be served by other means that leaves the responsibility and the control in the hands of individuals, churches, and charitable organizations.

 

You are probably right, but since individuals, the churches and charitable organizations are not doing the job, well, that leaves the government.

 

Is it your opinion that one's position to the right, or to the left, of Jesus at the judgment will (or may) be determined by whether one's government fed the hungry, clothed the naked, et al? If you were a nonbeliever and a mean thieving bully, you would be on his right if you paid your taxes, part of which went to feed the hungry?

 

That is one of the strangest interpretations I have ever seen. :laugh:

 

Churches are reaching out well.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This is a joke, right?

 

No, my contention all along has been that we should not change the Scriptures. You are the one changing the Scriptures. Whether or not the kingdom is here now has no bearing on whether or not all authority belongs to Jesus.

He does no such thing. I seriously have to wonder if you have read this passage with any facility in language. It doesn’t seem like it. Romans 1 says that the gospel “concerns his Son” and then it goes on to say something about the Son whom the gospel concerns. Again, just read the text for what it says, not for what you are trying to support from it.

Not really.

So?

Yes, that is not in dispute.

I have used the Scripture repeatedly to show that you are misusing it.

I already did. I noted several posts ago that you have yet to address the passage in the Scripture that plainly defines the gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Notice that the gospel is what was preached, what was received, in which they stand, by which they are saved if they “hold fast unless they have believed in vain.” There, we see plainly that the gospel is something to be believed.

Now, let’s again use the text to see what is to be believed: that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day.

So plainly, the Scriptures agree with me and not with you. It is good news that Jesus Christ is Lord. But that is not the “gospel” so to speak. As I have pointed out “gospel” means good news, and there are many things that are “good news.”

So far you haven’t shown any place where Paul says this. You have (as I have shown) misread Romans 1.

Given your interpretations here, I am not sure that you are really qualified to identify something as strange. But the Scriptures never command us to advocate for the Lordship of Christ in all institutions of the world. That simply isn’t there.

This is what I have been saying and you have been rejecting. You want to define gospel by Romans 1:4 where Paul is not defining the gospel, and you refuse to define it by 1 Cor 15:1-4 where Paul is defining the gospel. So let Paul define his terms.

So tell us, why didn’t Jesus tie the gospel to universal health care? Why did he leave it to you, some 2000 years later, to do it?

 

That's not an interpretation; it's a question. What is your answer?

 

So is letting people die because they don't have any health insurance. I personally would not be thrilled if the government provided health care for all but who else can do it? I'd much prefer that the churches get together and support the needy but that's never going to happen. The U.S. is number 43 in the world in health care (World Health Organization data) and barely ahead of Cuba. That's a pitiful record for a country as wealthy and strong as we are.

 

Well also it is a strange question. I do not believe that a person's salvation or lack of it depends at all on what they believe about their government. :laugh:

 

Wow, sounds good to me. Now all I need is to go to the animal shelter and get a nice dog, a cat, and who know what other pets. Great idea Salt.

 

First, I am not sure if you have evidence to support this assertion. Second, the position you are advocating really amounts to saying that Jesus' authority is not over all after all, but rather does not include the institutions by which we order and structure our society. Because if you did consider His authority to embrace all, you would implement his Kingdom of God values - including care for the least of these - in all institutions of this world.

As it is, you seem to have a rather impotent King. You presumably call Him King - and rightly so - and yet you limit his Kingship. You shut his kingship out of governments, effectively saying, "we have a better secular way to run government, but we'll let Jesus be King inside the walls of the church or in our interior private lives".

 

You are the person who apparently will not take Paul at his word and cannot place his statements in the proper scriptural context.

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

Again, I am taking Paul at his word here. The reader who has been following this whole discussion will know that I have produced Old Testament texts that talk about the announcement - the good news - of a returning King.

You need to let Paul us what he means by the term "gospel", and not impose your own systems on him. You have produced zero texts to substantiate your claim about what the gospel is. I have produced the Romans 1 text which, like it or not, summarizes the gospel as the assertion that Jesus is Lord. And the word "Lord" is not an empty meaningless term. It means what it means. Jesus is Lord, with all that this implies.

You simply seem to let the Old Testament scriptures that Paul is clearly referring to "bounce off" you as if they do not support my point. But they clearly do, and I guess I need to repeat.

In Romans 1, Paul refers to a "gospel" promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.

At the end of Isaiah 41, we have this rather clear reference to "good news":

I was the first to tell Zion, 'Look, here they are!'
I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings

And then in the next few breaths we have this:

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations

and this

he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.

You suggest that I lack the facility to make sense of this issue. Well I am the one arguing from the Scriptures, you are simply making claims. And even high school student will see that Paul's "gospel" - clearly stated to be drawing on the prophets - echoes these very texts from Isaiah which assert that the "good news" is about Kingship, not about "being saved by faith".

The gospel is the announcement that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection from the dead constitutes him as lord (of all).

 

Consider the following hypothetical interview between a reporter and some Christian who does not believe that universal health care is something worth advocating for.

Reporter: Should the church be advocating for universal health care (UHC)?

Christian: No it should not.

Reporter: Doesn't Jesus give rather strong statements about caring for "the least of these"? Wouldn't UHC be one way to do this?

Christian: Those teachings are not about how we should structure and order our society, they are instructions about how the church is to behave. Jesus is not telling us that we should enshrine this principle in the way we run our governments.

Reporter: I thought that Jesus said "all authority has been given to him on earth". Doesn't that include the institutions of government? And I thought the Messiah was a king. The word "Christ" means "king". And I throught there was a prophecy that "the government will be on his shoulders". Doesn't this all mean that you should be enshrining the care of the "least of these" in institutions of government?

Christian: Not really. It is important to separate church and state. And Jesus won't really be governing till His second coming. So in the meantime, we have to let the institutions of society run according to different principles?

Reporter: Whose principles?

Christian: I am not sure, secular ones I guess. But we need to have good Christians in government.

Reporter: But these Christians will be acting publically according to the secular principles of government, while ordering their "private" lives according to a different set of values?

Christian: I guess so - we need to have separation of church and state.

Reporter: So I guess your "king" only wants to exercise authority over your personal internal affairs but let Caesar, in his many incarnations, remain on the throne of how society is ordered and run?

Christian: Um....err....I guess so.

Reporter: He doesn't sound like much of a King after all. So even though Jesus repeatedly announced that the Kingdom of God had arrived, you think it is a kingdom limited to the private lives of believers and that authority over how we order our society is to be subject to the principles of another kingdom, one based on the secular values of, say, free market capitalism?

Christian: Well, now that you put it that way.....

 

That is not what was asked in the question. Is it your opinion that one's position to the right, or to the left, of Jesus at the judgment will (or may) be determined by whether one's government fed the hungry, clothed the naked, et al? If you were a nonbeliever and a mean thieving bully, you would be on his right if you paid your taxes, part of which went to feed the hungry?

 

[/QUOTE]

I do not believe this is a simple yes or no question. In one way it may well. Why? Because if the government has to do it than that means that people, and yes, Christians were not doing their job. Remember the sheep and the goats. One of the statements was "I was hungry and ye fed me." Another was, "I was sick and ye visited me." {KJV} Perhaps a better translation is: I was sick, and you took care of me. {GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995), International Standard Version (©2008).
Another is: I was infirm, and ye looked after me. {Young's Literal Translation}

I do not presume to know how God will judge us. We have hints in Matthew and other places. But we infinite being can never totally understand the infinite. In fact, I doubt we understand 1% of all there is to know about God.

You asked a second question:

No he would not be on his right as he is/was a nonbeliever.

 

Alright, thanks for answering that time. In this judgement-- Matthew 25:31-46-- nothing is said about faith or the lack of it; just whether one did feed, clothe, help... And some people do take part in these deeds ["doing it unto the least of these..."], but only because they pay taxes to a government through which it is arranged. If anyone's eternal judgment is determined as stated in this passage, it should be impossible that the answer would not be yes for some. But again, this is a judgment of works... which either nullifies faith as the determining factor, or else that faith only gets one that far, and there is more than one judgment.

 

First, most of the poverty in the world is intentionally caused by the poor person's own government and most international aid money ends up in Swiss banks.

Second, there is no ECONOMIC reason why any US citizen over 30 years old of normal health and intelligence should be poor except an extraordinary run of bad luck.

 

--------------------------------
Okay, I've heard, here posted in so many words, that we have the worst medical care in the whole world because we don't have socialized medicine.....and that churches and charities aren't 'doing their job'.

Hogwash!

I've had no healthcare insurance since 02-2006. Yet I've continued to get health care... and pay most out of my pocket.... and gross income (not Net .....which is less than gross) is under $1000/ month. I'm not on medicare or medicaid nor food stamps and the retirement I draw is my own and not disability, and I live 10 miles from the nearest grocery store and town.!

For my cancer preventative/treatment, I take part in a research program but it only pays for the medicine I am ginea-pig to. It does not pay for doctor visits, labs, nor other tests which may be required by the program. Also required to participate in that program is that I am followed by a doctor who is taking part in the research program as part of his oncology practice so that he is familiar with side effects and changes which might create conditions adverse to my continuance in that program. I see him twice a year and am billed for the full amount..... by him at $180/visit and then by the hospital labs for the blood work he draws. By talking to financial people within both places, I have been able to negotiate a reduction discount based on need.... which his office matches....meaning I pay half of what I'm billed and thereby satisfy the charges. The hospital lab works differently...... and depending on whether I've been able to meet their full charges or not.... I either pay, or wrangle (gently......they are very kind) over what I can pay and what they will be satisfied with. My diagnostic mamograms (which is more costly than routine...as the radiologist reads while I'm present and then films are again reviewed by several radiologist afterward before I get the final result) were required by the research program twice yearly for the first two years and now annually...... to the tune of about $200/yr. Annual pap smears are also required....and the oncologist does none of these so it requires a different doctor visit.

By asking around and contacting our local health department, I find that I ....... and not me only but all women in Florida, insured or not, in my age group, fit a program for mammography and cervical cancer screening. If one has insurance...then of course the state will attempt to collect from the third party payer: After that payment or no payment for services is done based on income..... and for me, it is free ........so it is your tax dollars at work. At my first visit to the health department they also wanted to do a blood screen for STD's (I've studied a little about the health department ....and anticipated this as part of their system of compiling data for the CDC, plus they would do a cholesterol and glucose check.... and give me my results to keep in my personal health file or take 'to my doctor'.)

While there at the clinic, I briefly discussed my financial situation with the health department counselor: She gave me a 5 sheets......each one telling of a different walk-in clinics....some in the mornings, some in the evenings, and some in the afternoon or all day: Some are free and some do accept insurance or payments on a income basis scale. When I had a bad bout with what I felt was pneumoina, earlier this year..... I went to a $40/visit clinic here in my own neighborhood and got my scripts for antibiotic and follow-up..... A month of treatment to knock it out. At church I hear of another SBC in the area which has a medical walk-in clinic for the poor which gives out free medical care. Generic scripts for antibiotics and most 'maintance meds' can be filled at the WalMart for $4.

I've never been one to go to the doctor for every little siffle, ache or pain, or unrelenting head ache.... I don't intend to start now. I pray and ask God to show me what is wrong or suggest to my mind something which I can do to get relief, and He helps me. Even when I don't figure it out and go to the doctor...... I know it is God who is my helper and I trust Him to work through them. Workplace required annual physicals....and thats about all the doctor saw of me....... all those years I paid for or had provided health insurance. For those with chronic conditions and which require specialized following, I'm sure finding free or reduced cost health care is a very real challenge: Still I'm not persuaded that it can't be done if one is willing to search for it.

Besides specialty and chronic conditions: Hospitalization is the real concern, as the 'community hospitals' lost place to the 'for profit' hospitals which rose up after health insurance became common place in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. People with insurance went to the fancier places with the latest bells and whistles, whether they needed to or not, and abandoned the great care that was offered to all, indigent, self-pay, or insured at the community hospitals.

Health, Life, Fire and Theift Insurance, Automobile Insurance....... these are policies we get, some of which are required by law or regulation, but we don't get them in hopes of using them. The best insurance of all... is that insurance provided before all others.... that which we can have by faith in our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and then pattern our living in such a way regarding risky behavior ....as though we had no insurance or place of safety to help us: Beyond that, live and provide that insurance which is providentially within our means to do so, and make use of only that which is necessary.