Obama Rhetoric vs Health Care Reality

In the beginning, there may be a difference between "government run" and "government backed." However, I contend that "government backed" will quite rapidly morph into "government run." Especially under our current leaders.

Exhibit 1: General Motors.

 

Sounds strange coming from you. The guy always pushing freedoms...

Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions, it will do just that, make them illegal. Prisons are full of people who did things illegal. This would relegate the procedures to non-medical "pushers" who would perform the procedures through what ever means and would then put the mother also at risk. If you are indeed pro-life, you would be concerned about both lives and not just the unborn.

Laws keep honest people honest but has never stopped a criminal from doing anything. There is a clear disconnect in the human psyche that makes one feel abortion is a good solution. In the name of Christianity, I believe our task is to transform these individuals by the renewing of their minds. That is our Christian endeavor...

 

Quite a different scenario. Universal coverage would be a new program, not taking over a bankrupt industrial giant.

 

Yep...that's why murder laws are silly. People still murder folks. Therefore, we should remove the laws prohibiting it. That way, no one will be doing anything wrong.

You owe RM an apology for this accusation. You have no right to accuse him of such.

 

When we see the government's failure at other endeavors, why would this being "new" make it any more likely to succeed?

(Further note: government's failures have proven to be a bi-partisan phenomenon. Bush's FEMA was a train-wreck; as will Obama's healthcare plan be. The problem isn't the "D" or "R" suffix; it is what I enumerated earlier....just wanted to clear that up, so it wouldn't be thought of that I approve of "R" big government, either).


EDIT: I just read the above paragraph. If asked to diagram that sentence, I'll probably just disown that I wrote the doggone thing.

 

This comes courtesy of Neal Boortz:

He said that those "here in Washington who've grown accustomed to sky-is-falling prognoses and the certainties that we cannot get this done, I have to repeat and revive an old saying we had from the campaign: 'Yes, we can.'"

• "Yes we can" make the dumb masses react positively to another focus-group based sloganeering campaign.
• "Yes we can" take control of another 20% of the American economy.
• "Yes we can" gain even more control over you by controlling your access to health care.
• "Yes we can" ration health care.
• "Yes we can" make the necessary excuses when this whole thing turns into dog squeeze. We'll blame what's left of the private sector.
• "Yes we can" stifle innovation in health care for the rest of time.
• "Yes we can" create long waiting lines for seeing a specialist.
• "Yes we can" make it seem as if there are only two MRI units in the entire nation
• "Yes we can" make the Canadians feel better knowing that misery loves company
• "Yes we can" successfully ignore the private sector's role in health care.
• "Yes we can" help to bury the people the people who die because their access to health care was limited due to their age.
• "Yes we can" run your health care like we've run Social Security and Medicaid.
• "Yes we can" fool most of the people in this country ... most of the time.

Source: http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html

 

Access to healthcare is already a problem for the uninsured. It is also rationed by the fact that they cannot afford it. Even folks with so-called "good" insurance are rationed by high deductibles.

And for all its troubles, Social Security has done more to keep older Americans out of poverty and to give them a decent standard of living than anything else. Compare how most seniors today live vis-a-vis those of the pre Social Security era. It needs to be fixed, but it has succeeded in its goals.

 

When was that? There were illegal abortions before the Republican dominated Supreme Court passed Roe. vs. Wade. Not only did unborn children die but a fair number of women as well.

 

Yep, Mitch loves the womenfolk. NOT!

Great compassion for those in bad situations who are hurting.

 

You're twisting my words, I said having the law won't stop abortions like having the law against murder haven't stopped murders. Are you truly interested in stopping abortions or just making it illegal? One is not the absolute means to the other.

You speak for Rev now? HHhhmm??

 

Slaughter is not the only condition of murder and I don't know if it makes the sin worse. Again, are you truly pro-life?

Sure, you can close the mills but that won't stop abortions. Meth labs are illegal but there is tons of it on the streets.

This is where I really part with you.

The mother who seeks an abortion has far more problems than just the obvious. This is a person who is truly crying on the inside in seek of direction. God has made us custodians, defenders and propagators of the direction which they SHOULD seek. Our mission, the great commission is to present the direction.

Who are we to cast away a soul because they are considering a bad choice or is our mission to do our best to help this individual see the light? Who are we to write off a person because they've sinned? Did God give you that license? I mean to write them off without first witnessing.

The mother is still a life and a soul put here by God and is someone we should equally seek to save. To deny this is to pass your own judgment on this individual and makes you just as guilty of murder. Eternal murder...

It seems one can be so caught up in being anti-abortion that we forget the real mission of the Church. That is why God has us here, to go into the world and make disciples. We are here to save all souls and not just those of the unborn (who are already saved by the way).

You completely missed my point, we all have sinned. To say you haven't is to call God a liar. However, we are saved from our sins because we were not written off. Jesus is offering salvation to the mother and we should be equally concerned about her life, her soul. Anyone making bad decision shows or hands the work the have to do. To turn your back on that work is to turn your back on the Mission of Christ and His Church.

Again Rev, I hate to see anyone get so anti abortion that they forget about the mission of the Church. I have no problem with doing for the unborn but I believe God's concern and love is for all life and not just the unborn.

I may be wrong but I cry less for the unborn because they bypassed the misery and suffering of this world and went directly to be with the Lord. A law won't change that but I am not against having the law.

 

This kind of statement makes me lose respect for you. I won't bore you with details (it's likely you don't care anyway), but trust me...I have done much more to stop abortions than you'll ever imagine. And I resent the question.

RM and I disagree on some things...but for you to insinuate that he doesn't care about the women getting abortions is beyond the pale. I have a right to point out personal attacks when I see them. Of course, you have a responsibility to not make personal attacks, but that's for you to handle...

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But you are responsible for your comments, not RM's. If RM makes a hateful comment to you, and I see it, I speak up.

Do what you want. It's your conscience.

 

Talk about nice timing...

Obama directly contradicts your assertion:

Obama: Govt-run health care could trump private​

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D990H1300&show_article=1

 

Sorry...that would be you.

My point to LB was that I do not offer a blanket defense for the entire body of anyone's posts...

But when I see one that unfairly attacks, I hope that I'm consistent enough to point that out. And his insinuation that you don't care about the moms is an unfair attack, IMO