Health Care for America Now

I don't think that's the missing justification for socialism that has never has worked anywhere it's been tried.

 

I take it you are an opponent of "separation of church and state."

 

I don't know how companies came to be expected to provide health care for it's employees. I guess some started it as a benefit for one or two positions, and now we have this.

Free health care to illegal immigrants, welfare mothers, and ambulance chasers like John Edwards are some big things wrong with our system.

 

Corporate taxes, excessive and stupid regulations, subsidized market segments, etc. - all the product of government - are what burden our companies. Socialist medicine will mean more taxes, more regulations, and more subsidies.

Health care costs paid by companies are actually paid by the employees through their labor. It's part of the total compensation received. It's an agreement between employees to share medical costs and to let their employer manage the system. It's a reward for working - not an entitlement for being.

 

Don't judge libs by their results. Only judge them by their intentions. Thats what counts doesn't it?

 

Absolutely. But the government cannot fix that.

 

Government programs are always cost ineffective. The total cost would rise higher than cheech and chong. The red tape would create unnecessary waits and denials of claims. The government is poor stewardship.

 

Actually, no he is not lord of all earthly institutions! He is sovereign and can do as he wishes..... but he is not yet exerting his sovereignty or else we would see righteousness in government...... and, like it or not, we would live under penalty of obediance or death: When he is Lord over all and the kingdoms become his footstool, a man will be a child into the years where he once would have been old: the carnivore will turn to eating grass: the killing of an animal will be as that of killing a man. He will bring his kingdom with him: Our theology is wrong if we think we can bring it down.

You confuse values with policies, and obedience from the heart with enforcement FORCED by man.

No I do not! The earth is corrupted by the corruption of our sin, the innocent blood which has been shed, the inhabitations some have made with demons and devils: When Jesus executes judgement on this world and cleanses it with fire and throws and binds the satan in the pit and destroys death, then He will execute his authority...... and it will be beyond the thought and the strength of man, to design, officiate, and execute.

First, at the time this law was given Israel only had judges who judged the people by the law when there was a complaint or offense. Second, the laws which you refer to applied to borrowing and debt: If there existed a necessity, no one who had ample was to refuse a fellow Israelite. Any thing thus given or lent was to be without usery. Lands were to return to the family or the tribe. The Levities portion was their portion of the receipts from the tithes and offerings of the people. They also took part in emergency provisions. They were also the medicine men and the health department of their day. The story of Naomi and Ruth and Boaz illustrate clearly how the poor were dealt with: People who prospered did not with hold their goods in the presence of need. The instruction they were given was, in harvest time, to go over their fields once with their harvesters and to leave that which was missed so that the poor could gather and use to feed their family or barter for other necessities at the market. A family and its extensions were responsible for meeting the needs of those more helpless members. In the NT, the church assumed the responsibility of caring for the 'widows' who were 'widowed indeed'........ older or more frail, sober, faithful in their service, morallly upright, and in need, having no family members near, able, or willing to help in responsibility.

Still, under the NT provision..... the charitable functions are a function of the Christian's witness and actions within his community and not a function of government. When government does these functions, it is not in the name of Christ and brings no glory to the Son or the Father. Our Christian persuasion to create programs in the government places a tax upon those earnings which God gave the power to provide, and reduces the power and direction of our stewardship and gives the glory for its disbursement to other men: Not this only, but it creates a dependancy upon government which turns men towards the god of this world and fails to remind them of their dependance and trust in God.

I caution you to examine what you believe carefully: The devil offered Jesus the kingdoms of this world if Jesus would worship him. In Jesus dwelt all the fullness of the godhead bodily...... If the devil was lying in his offer then Jesus could have said so. Instead, Jesus neither denied that the Satan has a power to rule allowed by God for a time......which includes the kingdoms of the world and the hearts which allow him room...... but Jesus also knew He (Jesus) is King and Lord..... as sure at the beginning of the creation as His appointment to be Savior...... a predestination that is set in eternity. We are approaching the end of these times: Soon our Savior will appear and not long after He will break the seal to the title deed over all the earth, the kings and kingdoms, and the nations of men.

Til then, He rules within us......if we let him. Til then, many rule, and some in the name of god...... but the question is in every case which god do they serve? The Bible is very clear that men do follow after other 'gods' and in some cases obtain power by satanic influence and demonic powers. Besides profession, all we know of others is by their fruit. We know also, that which pleases God and is Godlly is also righteous just and holy and brings glory to God and causes men everywhere to recognize his sovereignty with thanksgiving and praise. Any thing which turns our eyes elsewhere is a distraction....... even this piece.

 

Amazing, isn't it?

The US is one of the only countries in the industrialized world without a comprehensive health program, and we pay substantially more for our healthcare than most of the industrialized world. We are also one of the countries where one could potentially go bankrupt over a health issue. Moreover, my doctor advised me that I needed to have something done, only to have the insurance company tell me that it was not necessary, and would not pay for it. Think about that: a BUREAUCRAT can second guess a doctor who examined me and made a diagnosis. Corporations are complaining about the rising costs of healthcare, most notably General Motors.

Yes, let's keep things just the way they are, spiraling out of control........

 

What are you going to do when you need surgery, a stay in the hospital, a cardiologist, etc. I guess we all have to die sometime. It might as well be sooner in America rather than later in most of the rest of the civilized countries.

 

So what exactly is your argument FOR gov't run health care ? Seems like you have a great argument against it.

 

Ken,
I don't understand the seeming inconsistency of your position. You seem to espouse the gov't staying away from anything that wasn't expressly given in the Constitution, but want the gov't to run health care. Could you explain it to me? I really am not being antagonistic.

 

You take it correctly, I think that the concept of separation of church and state cannot be reconciled with the scriptures.

 

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The scriptures are clear - Jesus is the lord of all institutions.

When Paul announced the "gospel", he was clearly suggesting, among other things, that Jesus is Lord of this present world and that Ceasar is not. I am not making this up. At the time of Paul, the word "gospel" was used to announce the ascendency of a new emperor to the throne in Rome. Paul chooses his words wisely. He is indeed telling his readers that Jesus has replaced Ceasar in respect to governance of this present world.

And in Acts, why did Paul get into trouble?

These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

And what about the Lord's prayer? If Jesus does not want his kingdom to be implemented in the present in earthly institutions, why does he ask to pray this:

your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

Now obviously Jesus is not here in person.

But the scriptural case is clear. He is King. Right now. And of all the institutions in the world.

Our responsibility in the "absence" of Jesus is to build for his imminent return to fully claim his kingdom. And so this means working to enshrine Kingdom of God principle in all spheres of human activity, including government.

I doubt Jesus will be impressed if we say something like the following to Him upon his return: "We felt that your authority only was going to kick in when You returned" or "We prayed for your kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven, but we decided that this really only applied to our 'personal lives', so we did not bother to work for adoption of kingdom of God values in the very institutions that run the world".

 

Interesting. The only time that the church and state, if you can call it that, as one and the same is in the OT ... and it did not work very well. The church and state certainly were not one and the same when Jesus was on earth. And if you look at history at any era when the church and state were the same, or when the church had power over the state things were not good at all; i.e. try the Dark Ages in Europe for instance, or the Telaban in recent years, or Sudia Arabia. History shows that the people are better off when the church does on dominate the state nor the state dominate the church. There needs to be a creative tension between the two with none holding power over the other.

 

This, quite frankly, is a very bold denial of the gospel. No where in the Scriptures is any kind of health care connected to the gospel. The gospel is the good news that Jesus came to be everything we should have been and died the death we shoud hae died so that we can have life and forgiveness through faith in him.

You will look in vain for any biblical connection between health care and the gospel. In fact, if we look at the Bible, the gospel was a ticket to death, not life and health. See Hebrews 11 for some evidence, or Acts 12, or many other passages.

This is not in dispute. The Bible clearly teaches this in Romans 13:1.

His authority in Matthew 28 that you cite has to do with making disciples, not providing health care.

Yes, you need to provide texts that the church is to advocate for any kind of healthcare or materialism.

That's nonsense. You started off with a position and then failed to provide any Scripture for it.

This is the way the gospel works. The gospel in the NT was not about taking over government. It was about a radically different view of the world.

You need to study the Bible on this one. You have denied the gospel.

By all means, make an argument for universal health care. There are some to be made. But none of them have to do with the gospel, and we should not compromise and demean the gospel by tying it to universal health care. Jesus didn't die to give you health insurance.