It is too soom to speculate. Given prior governmental programs the outcome is not favorable except to the underwriters and the pharmacies. One thing seem sure, the overload will be tremendous--fatique of the workers, the triage resposibilities will slow the sysem down. That is for starters. The usually fraud and scams will remain viable. An excellent idea in the planning and rather makeshift in the execution. Tom

"“What does all this have to do with God?” was the first inquiry the panel received during the time for questions and answers. Although he disavowed speaking for God, Branson swiftly drew the audience’s attention to a number of theological resources."

Good question...and I suggest it is more a political-socio-economic "view" of how best to offer health care distribution to the masses, that varies in understanding, than actually speaking for God.

The complexities of the rights of "the one and the many" complicate the issue. How does quality health care come into being before the "delivery system" is even contemplated? How do the rights of "the one and many" feed into that?

If delivered "quality" health care is an "assumed right", may we ask why it is not provided in Bangladesh or Cuba?

Just a few questions?

regards,
pat

Pat
You state:"The complexities of the rights of "the one and the many" complicate the issue."

I disagree. Providing everyone with the health care we ourselves enjoy is a moral question and it's doable. Every industrialized country has managed to provide for its people. It's just a question of will (and not money; we pay more and have worse outcomes.)

In this country we have a history of neglecting the rights of minorities, be they ethnic or economic. In the days of segregation all decent whites agreed that African-Americans should ideally have the same rights as they. The problem was that the time was never right for the privileged majority to grant these rights to the minority. Now we see the same reasoning applied to health care. Sure the poor ought to have health care! It's just too expensive to do it right now. Or: We need to focus on providing the infrastructure of reform. In the meantime people are dying in their thousands.

Pat, I don't know where you got the impression that there is something wrong with Cuban health care. It's a third world country economically and obviously can't afford all our fancy machines we have but they do take care of their own when it comes to health care. The Cubans throw their dissidents in jail; we let our poor die. Both things are shameful.

"Pat, I don't know where you got the impression that there is something wrong with Cuban health care. It's a third world country economically and obviously can't afford all our fancy machines."

The point Aage WAS what "right" gave us all those "fancy machines." What part did individual effort and economics play in it? Yes, the state also in various ways contributes. How do these individual rights for some renumeration play out?
I am not ignoring the concept of helping the less fortunate by charity or some form of government assistance.

The point also Aage is it is NOT a God given principle that a "single government" payer is from God.

I personally appreciated HK's system for example and it wasn't "directed by God" either. A "public" and "private" system.

Do you get my point?

regards,
pat

If health care is a right now, why isn't food? Who cares if you have a right to a cholesterol screening if your starving?
What about shelter? If you are getting hypothermia the solution is medical care?

Both food and shelter come before health care dont they?
If health care is a moral question why isn't food and shelter?

When leftist hearts bleed the blood evidently drains from the cranium first.

Article 25 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Point?

Alex,

"Point?"....

Who made them God to say what a "right" is? If they can supply it as God does air and sunshine...then they have the "right."

regards,
pat

What is the value of Christian faith to the world if those who embrace it quibble with the United Nation's idea that nations have a responsibilty towards its citizens and the citizens of the world?

It used to be that people worried about what would happen to morality if people stopped believing in God. In Europe that has happened and behold the horrors that have decended upon the hapless multitudes: tuition, health care and 4-5 weeks of annual vacation paid for my the community. Again, of what use is a religion that's confined to the head?

A right is what a group decides is a right.

If a group of 10 get together and ALL agree to a certain right, that right is a submission of their individual rights to the group right. It works in a republic or any member group.
Different groups are formed to give themselves perceived benefits and all agree. All who dont are not forced to participate.

The problem is a representative democracy.

If the same 10 people get together and 6 decide they themselves have a right to something and the 10 vote and it passes, 6-4. Just for the sake of discussion lets say the 6 are by their training ability and work ethic, dishwashers, general labors and gas station attendants. The remaining 4 own the restaurant, the landscaping or construction company and the gas station. The 6 have in effect voted to tax whoever they perceive is better off than they are to feather their own nests.

My grandpa said always beware of any system where they can vote on something and the majority can confiscate from the minority by claiming its a "right".

The UN is a perfect example of a bunch of toothless dullards getting together and establishing what a right is.
Most member nations have their hand out but have equal voting rights even though they dont pay any representative dues plus they are the beneficiaries of much of the grants and programs besides.
How about we establish that the UN budget be divided per capita so that everyone has the right to equal taxation?

People such as Aage who are all for these legalized confiscations who love the submission of individual rights to the masses, should pay an extra 20-30% taxes to advance their values and do it voluntarily.
What value is a liberal if all they advocate is the confiscation of other peoples money?

Michael
A right is derived from the Golden Rule or the First Comandment. "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, and the second it like the first, Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul," Christ was indeed a leftest! Tom

Tom,

Is it not true that in Michael's illustration of 4 whose wealth is "taken" by "democracy" (rather than constitutional law and property rights) that they perhaps see differently "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" as they likely would not take from others in many situations because they have had it "done unto themselves" and would not like to see "IT" done to others.

Just a thought from a "different" perspective.

Perhaps one of the best experiences a person can have is the responsibility of running their own business. It can change a lot of "perspectives" perhaps "both ways."

Christ was neither a "leftist nor rightest" although He was RIGHT. He used no Roman law in "WHAT JESUS DID" to provide for the needy...He provided when he chose from His own means.

I Suggest, The ONLY JUST LAW PRINCIPLES we have for the RIGHTS of the "one and many" was that given by God in the Theocracy of Israel...Modern "gentile" governments attempt but are "relative" in their attempts.

Regards,
pat

If I may add another thought or two.

It was congress, Labor Unions, and Large Corp's. that decided it was best for "employer" paid benefits and health care. Power and Advantage and the "tax code" were part of this decision. This drove the cost of "health care" up for all uninsured because of demand.

I believe in a "market based" pay and equality under tax law as this is the most favorable way to not distort the allocation of investments and cost of the final product.

Take an example of a small business person who may borrow 100k plus and go into business taking great risk for ones ability to provide for oneself/family and pay back the loan.

He is then told of the "rights" of others by congress who have no "direct risk" what the owner must provide as a "right" for others.

I do not see that "assigned obligation" as an example of "What would Jesus Do?"

I personally think we often confuse a "right" with what should be categorized as "mercy."

regards,
pat

A right is derived from the Golden Rule or the First Comandment. "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself, and the second it like the first, Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul," Christ was indeed a leftest! Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 17 November 2009 at 8:10

Tom
I would disagree to the extent involved in these verses. This is from the "message" just for a little extra flavor!

2 Thessalonians 3
6-9Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn't sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we worked our fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldn't be burdened with taking care of us. And it wasn't because we didn't have a right to your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example of diligence, hoping it would prove contagious.

10-13Don't you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And now we're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don't slack off in doing your duty.

14-15If anyone refuses to obey our clear command written in this letter, don't let him get by with it. Point out such a person and refuse to subsidize his freeloading. Maybe then he'll think twice. But don't treat him as an enemy. Sit him down and talk about the problem as someone who cares.

A TRUE coup de gras of the issue.

Pat your commentary on this issue has been irrefutable and anyone who cant see its clarity is trying not to see it.

Pat, my article 25 post was directed to Michael's post, just above it. It seemed to me that he was not aware that some bloodless-headed leftists had already addressed that point a few decades ago. But something tells me that given the tenor of his comments, he's not really paying attention to the specific facts here.

Now you ask, who made them God?

Huh?

No one. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about holding governments accountable. It's about broadening democracy beyond borders.

The last I checked humans have a role in keeping water and air safe and fairly distributed and getting food and health care to citizens.

On that note about spreading human rights, interestingly, Michael writes above: "The problem is a representative democracy."

It's always good to see those who attack the left also showing how that logic can end up antidemocratic as well.

Alex

You read the title?
God and the what? AMERICAN healthcare system. UN wasn't part of the subject was it? Perhaps you shouldn't assume.

True the UN did that. SO what? They made a lot of resolutions. Like you said, decades ago. Whats become of that?
Holding governments accountable? Half of the UN members do business under the table with governments they have placed economic embargoes on.

Were your comments made to verify the resulting idiocy of making resolutions of what a right is when one isn't in a position to provide those resources?
If so you have stumbled backwards into lucidity.

Alex,

Thanks for your clarifying why you posted Article 25. I did not follow the thought.

"The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about holding governments accountable. It's about broadening democracy beyond borders."

But...Who gave them the right to hold or define how all nations are accountable to what they consider a "right" to be?
Do they have a direct line to God's intentions?

The US Declaration describes unalienable rights from ones Creator to be "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Who authorized the additions as "fact" for US healthcare? :~)

regards,
pat

Alex,

Like most SDA's, I will "pick and choose" a EGW comment.

"Among the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance were many who determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. Their views found place in the Declaration of Independence, which sets forth the great truth that "all men are created equal" and endowed with the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right of self-government, providing that representatives elected by the popular vote shall enact and administer the laws. Freedom of religious faith was also granted, every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. REPUBLICANISM AND PROTESTANTISM BECAME THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE NATION. These principles are the secret of its power and prosperity. The oppressed and downtrodden throughout Christendom have turned to this land with interest and hope. Millions have sought its shores, and the United States has risen to a place among the most powerful nations of the earth. {GC 441.1}

As part of the "Adventist Pie", How do you think that thought might float with the UN? :~)

regards,
pat

There are two aspects that are rarely discussed

(1) "If health care is a moral question why isn't food and shelter?"

We have laws in this country (the USA). The enforcement of those laws is what stops a newly adult person from simply walking up to a piece of land and planting a garden. The enforcement stops such a person from simply cutting down some trees and making a shelter for themselves. They even stop someone from living in 'substandard' housing that they can pay for.

Because we remove this option, and because of a mixture of bad luck and bad choices, some people are not able to provide there own food and shelter.

We have a choice
(a) kill them
(b) physically restrain them somewhere until they die
(c) provide them with some level of food and shelter
(d) provide them with some level of food and shelter and additional training and equipment that will make them able to care for themselves within the constraints imposed by our laws

I am stunned at the number of Christians who choose (b)

The economically sensible choices are either (a) or (d), and most Christian's oppose the death penalty for picking figs of someone else's fig tree

(2) Once we decide to do (d), there needs to be a rational discussion of the amount of help that will be provided. The combined insurance/legal/medical system in this country is not making rational choices in this space. Instead the medical people are inventing expensive therapies, and then the lawyers are insisting that those therapies be made available to everyone, and the insurance companies love it because they live of a percentage of the amount spent

There is a SIMPLE solution

Part 1: The govt defines a MINIMAL provided-to-everyone publically-funded safety net. It is LOW, UNPLEASANT, UNDESIRABLE but better than being shot or starving in the street or being jailed.

Part 2: The govt raises taxes to pay for this safety net, and subcontracts out TO THE LOWEST ADEQUATE-QUALITY BIDDER the provision of these services.

Part 3: The govt makes it clear that no organization is required to give you more than this. You only get better than this if you pay for it - either out of your own pocket, or (if you want to) you can pool your resources with like-minded individuals and set up some kind of insurance system.

This is what all the other western countries are doing.

It ain't hard.

But it doesn't let all those extra players fill their pockets with taxpayers dollars.

/Bevin

I commented that a right was derived from--The source of the Golden Rule which precded "rights" Just as the question who was the neigbhor of him that fell among theives? It has evoluted, if I may use that word, out of Christian Charity to a societal good. Thus an expecttion or ritht just vacation and sick days. It keeps good(EFFECTIVE) workers, and helps make workers good. The more competetive the job, the more likely the fringe benefits will increae. While some "rights" may seem as a burden to the employer, the end result is usually improved morale and productivity.

The hotest hour of the day is agout 3 P.M. in the Summer. My dad on particularly hot days would close down the brick layers and yet pay the brick layers for a full eight hour shift. It was too hot to work, the mortar couldn't keep its temper, and the resultant wall would be inferior to wall laid in the cooler part of the day. In order to get the best wall possibile, dad would pay a little more--of course the workmen were pleaed and Dad always had his pick of the best bricklayers. Getting paid for eight hours of work having worked on sis hours is not a right gut it is a wish strategy under certain weather conditions. Tom

Isn't this a bit like fiddling while Rome is burning? Estimates vary but between 20 and 40,000 people die in this country every year because of inadequate health care. Just yesterday a study showed that nearly 50 million struggle to have enough food to eat. In the United States.

And we begin discussing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin. Whether we are believers or not, can't we at least agree that this is a scandalous state of affairs--and that the need is so great that no amount of private charity can deal with the problem. Only government has the resources. That'w one reason we have government so that we can tackle problems that cannot be solved on basis of individual action.

And if everything else fails, maybe we could borrow some compassion and human values from the atheists of Europe who have long since done away with such Dickensian misery.

Devices like this one...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_he_me/us_med_permanent_heart_p...

$125,000 for 2 more years of life for someone who is 65 years old already and has not taken care of the heart God gave them...

No way that should be covered by the minimum safety net.

Maybe though, for a 30 year old with a congenital problem - it might be justifiable for them.

/Bevin

"50M struggle to have enough food".

That is 1:6 American's

It makes you wonder about the definition of "enough" and the bias of the people who created the study - I don't see anything like that level of problem, and I ride ambulances in the two largest cities in New Hampshire.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AF42220091116

Oh - they are also counting people who get food stamps - which includes low income/asset retirees. But wait, those 36M getting food stamps are NOT struggling to get food - because they get food stamps.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10101.html

So that only leaves 14M who might be struggling. Who else did they count. Oh, I know, people who are unemployed but own half-million dollar homes.

/Bevin

Tom,

"In order to get the best wall possibile, dad would pay a little more--of course the workmen were pleaed and Dad always had his pick of the best bricklayers. Getting paid for eight hours of work having worked on sis hours is not a right gut it is a wish strategy under certain weather conditions."

That's the way it is suppose to work. Individuals making the right choices with the most effective means given a particular situation. No specific rule applied to all by a fixed government standard accomplishes what your dad did.

regards,
pat

Pat,

(Quoting the original article and commenting), you said:
"“What does all this have to do with God?” was the first inquiry the panel received during the time for questions and answers. ….”

“Good question...and I suggest it is more a political-socio-economic "view" of how best to offer health care distribution to the masses, that varies in understanding, than actually speaking for God.”

And (quoting EGW) you also said:

“…REPUBLICANISM AND PROTESTANTISM BECAME THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE NATION….”
______________

Assuming I agree the “American” narrative is the ultimate driver of how I should act, or is the final authority on what values I hold (an assumption I am not willing to completely concede), I would respond:

Our REPUBLICAN form of representative democracy allows its citizens to learn the facts, form opinions, vote, influence public policy, and pass laws. Call it politics, government or whatever, “We the people”, communally decide what our laws, rights, duties and taxes are. These are all part of our “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE NATION”.

Along with individual freedom, hard work, and thrift, our (Christian) PROTESTANTISM also includes principles of mercy, charity, hospitality, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, loving our enemies, doing good to those who take advantage of us, turning the other cheek, etc. It is not just about rights, but also duties and obligations; --call it the "price of citizenship", in God's kingdom and Caesar's.

Belonging to two separate kingdoms, Christians “Render unto Caesar (whoever or whatever form “Caesar” takes –dictatorship, as in the original emperor, or any of the modern variants; a communist/socialist government, like Cuba; or a democracy, like the USA) that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s”.

I am a dual citizen of God’s kingdom and Caesar’s. Sometimes my two kingdoms are in parallel; at other times they are in conflict. Proud and grateful as I am of my American citizenship, my “Adventist/protestant/Christian identity takes precedence. My Christian narrative informs my American narrative, not the other way around.

I’m glad LLU, an Adventist Christian institution with a large medical presence, held this discussion; reminding its constituents that our Christian values can, indeed, inform how we respond to political, socio-economic realities.

Michael,

My American experience tells me (using your hypothetical group of ten), the “4” have just as much capacity to “rob” the “6” as you claim the “6” do to the “4”. The “6” use numbers, votes and public action, demonstrations, etc., because that is where they have the advantage. The “4” use power, influence, money, hired lobbyists, market manipulations, sometimes even education and religion, because that is where they have the advantage. Greed and evil exists in all quarters and, in Caesar’s kingdom, needs to be regulated and governed.

The “4” use power, influence, money, hired lobbyists, market manipulations, sometimes even education and religion, because that is where they have the advantage.
Posted by: Neville (not verified) | 18 November 2009 at 6:06

Every one of the things you mention require convincing someone and they then choose to act however they choose, whereas the 6 simply say there are more of us than there are of you, therefore we decide you should pay for us to...insert your cause here....

Has your experience taught you that it only takes one person working at the video store with the life goal of buying beer and watching Nascar to cancel out Bill gates vote?
Perhaps the people who risk and who make all the jobs everyone else needs need 10 votes.
Realize that the power in the 6 only comes from their unwiting Koolaid drinking of politians pandering?
Case in point.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address

Michael,

And how many hard working, honest, tax-paying, penny-pinching video store employee/stock investors does it take to cancel out a Bernard Madoff? ;)

Neville

Neville,

Thanks for your thoughts.

My response to Alex was to point out America is not a "Democracy" but a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference. The latter places limits on "democracy" in the document and the "Bill of Rights."

As far as the EGW quote, it wouldn't be high on the acceptability thoughts at the UN unless it was "hate speech"...and they (UN) also with my "two kingdom" philosophy don't hold my allegiance.

I definitely embrace the "two kingdom" concept and no earthly rule takes prioroty over the "kingdom of Christ." The present kingdom of this world has a place however in creating "proper" civil order (Rom.13) and is beneficial in creating the eternal "Kingdom of Christ/God."

I am a firm believer that political bipartisanship created the present financial debacle with the assistance of the Federal Reserve and Treasury policy.

No one is saying the "'American” narrative is the ultimate driver of how I should act, or is the final authority on what values I hold", but neither is the UN or the EU...or world opinion. I simply found the EGW comment interesting.

With the exception of abortion, I find the UN social mandate quite similar to "Catholic social policy/teaching." Some may desire that view...I don't.

Finally, I have no problem with LLU's program. I am simply saying that GOD has less to say concerning the present discussion than does a particular political-socio-economic opinion/view for the "delivery system"...which is closer to Adam Smith or Marxian thought.

regards,
pat

Great discussion! Thanks!!

Pat,

Thank you for your equally thoughtful response.

When I said, “Along with individual freedom, hard work, and thrift (usually conservative political talking points), our (Christian) PROTESTANTISM also includes principles of mercy, charity, hospitality, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, loving our enemies, doing good to those who take advantage of us, turning the other cheek” (usually liberal talking points), my point was that perhaps God, indeed, has more to say about our present political, socio-economic discussion.

Could Aage be right that the socialist democracies of Europe, say the Scandinavian variant, although currently more secular, have actually incorporated more Christian principles in their socio-econo-politics (regardless of Adam Smith or Marx)? After all, they usually rank pretty high on the “happiness” (blessed?) scale in most comparative national happiness ranking surveys. Just a thought.

And how many hard working, honest, tax-paying, penny-pinching video store employee/stock investors does it take to cancel out a Bernard Madoff? ;)

Neville

Posted by: Neville (not verified) | 18 November 2009 at 6:50

Did it occur to you that everyone who gave Madoff money was greedy and did so voluntarily?
Is the IQ of the average american so low that they dont understand that there is considerable risk involved?

I didnt lose a cent. Do you not see the difference?

Michael,

My point was that "4s" are equally capable of robbing the "6s"; or in the case of Madoff, robbing small-fry, non-profit "6s", as well as other big-fish "4s".

Voluntary or not, a victim is a victim. By the way, Madoff is not the only "4"; there are many others, some honest and hardworking, others greedy and slothful--profiting at the expense of the sweat, sacrifice and yes, even low IQ of others. That doesn't make it any less evil.

Like I said, evil exists in all quarters and needs to be regulated and governed.

Neville
At least we see now the source of your confusion.
A greedy investor who thinks people pay double diget interest without assuming any risk is not a victim.
That is whats known as a SUCKER.

My grandfather had a saying;
Stupidity is its own reward.

Back then stupid meant stupid and not victim. BTW it still does.

Neville,

"PROTESTANTISM also includes principles of mercy, charity, hospitality, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, loving our enemies, doing good to those who take advantage of us, turning the other cheek” (usually liberal talking points),"

Is the "liberal talking point" any different from the Protestant "conservative" historically in taking care of the unfortunate...or has it simply become more an issue of individual and church community responsibility vs. the "modern liberal Protestant view of transference to state sponsorship to do these things." I suggest "conservative Christians" have always been just as concerned with their personal time and money as have been "liberals"... and more likely to use their own time and money.

You say, "(regardless of Adam Smith or Marx)?"
I would suggest that is a pretty big "regardless" to simply overlook to those interested in "sustainable individual rights and liberty." And...is it not true or strange that pagans also run after all these things?" Mt.6:30-34.

I again suggest that the issue is more about the best sustainable way to provide health care and by whom rather THAN either side being able to claim God is "morally" on their side. There are presently simply to many crosscurrents of the rights of "the one and the many" involved.

Branson says," One of these is the Sabbath with its mandated rest for male and female slaves. Another is the “Year of Jubilee” in which slaves were to be set free, debts forgiven and the land allowed to lay fallow. Jesus drew upon this in his inaugural sermon. Accord to Luke 4: 1 – 19, citing the Old Testament, Jesus declared that he had come to bring good news to the poor, release the captives and let the oppressed go free."
I suggest Branson's quick reply and examples are full of holes as far as "modern day equivalent application."

These were part of the Laws of Israel (foreknown by all before entrance into the land of milk and honey) and were based on a "land based system" and not provision in the cancelation of debt at the 7yr. or the return of land at Jubilee. Charity or the poor tithe was used for provision for "feast" and not redistribution of earned income under "law."

That is the system I am sure of that properly represents "God's will" for the state. The rest are often surmised and "relative assumptions."

Christ and, "good news to the poor, release the captives and let the oppressed go free", I suggest expressed no political agenda but the spirtual beginning of the Kingdom of Christ/God.

If there is ultimately a "one payer" system I obviously will not resist Caesar on this point...but it is a downward and not upward road, I suggest.

regards,
pat

"What value is a liberal if all they advocate is the confiscation of other peoples money?"

What are taxes but "confiscation"? Does any U.S. citizen have a choice to pay or not? We presently pay for healthcare for those who have no insurance and it is far more expensive for the usual treatment at the ER than preventive care would have been. Do any citizens get to decide where and how their taxes will be spent?

We pay for food stamps in our taxes, and thousands of other benefits. If we were suddenly hit with impossible medical costs, perhaps had to declare bankruptcy, we would be happy to use food stamps or even line up at the food banks.

We too soon forget that "there but for the grace of God" we could be in their shoes. Does anyone really believe that all unemployed or lacking health insurance ar lazy and could find work if they only searched? It's the Marie Antoinette syndrome: "Let them eat cake."

If this is the "Christian nation" response, I'll take the atheistic European--they care for their own.

>>> "What value is a liberal if all they advocate is the confiscation of other peoples money?"

What this remark forgets is that conservatives are also in favor of the confiscation of other peoples money

Indeed, American conservatives are usually the ones leading the charge - they are the ones that believe that somehow someone can own land/minerals/ideas and sell them and use armies and legal systems to defend that ownership - thereby stealing from current and later generations assets that they never agreed to yield.

The moral background for this behaviour is almost invariably "I have it, you don't, therefore I get to keep it".

/Bevin

"What value is a liberal if all they advocate is the confiscation of other peoples money?"

Yes, it's all about the love of money, isn't it?

Now, that could be misunderstood. What I meant was that the quote shows that the real concern a lot of people have is that might have to pay more in taxes today. Alleviating human suffering doesn't even seem to be on the leaderboard of values. You expect political conservatives to be obsessed about their finances but Christians...?

Ellen White introduced the term "Fallen Protestantism." Indeed.

Aage,

I suggest rather that "Apostate Protestantism" is the advent of "Modern Liberal Theology" that Princeton's Machen "prophetically" warned of In "Christianity and Liberalism",1923, Eerdmans.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/

OH LORDY, what pandoras box have I opened? :~)

regards,
pat

PS. EGW spoke of "their" view of inspiration and method of interpretation by the way since you brought her name up.

>>> the real concern a lot of people have is that might have to pay more in taxes today

The crazy thing about this is that the USA pays a lot more than most Western countries for worse coverage and, generally speaking, no better results.

It is true that the USA does better in treating a few weird diseases that most people won't get - and which most Western countries have decided are not the most beneficial ways of spending the money.

I have no objection to people buying such treatment with their own money, but when they want taxes to pay for it, I object

Taxes should be used to provide an efficient low safety net for all

If that was done, the current costs would go down - today we provide such a safety net using ambulances and ER's at great expense

/Bevin

One simple way to make fees go down immediately...cancel the tax right off or benefit for healthcare expenses by Corporations for employees.

Individual personal right offs could remain for up to ~20K...If we must keep a graduated tax system.

Have a graduated 80-100% safety net beginning at ~20K for "catastophic illnesses."

Maintain present "public health services/hospitals."

Thus, a true supply and demand would return. Individuals have financial cause/incentive to maintain better health and there is not an artificial system overuse.

BUT.............................

You see it is really about..."Control or Advantage" at the core. We can't do that!And by the way...we are entitled!...Even by God no less! :~)

rgards,
pat

Pat

You overlooked the drugs and new technologies developed under federal grants. They are usually liceinced to private for profit companies for manufacture and sales. Seems there should be a tax or a mark down on price far beyond current levels. The after market uses of space age technology is tremendous even in the industrial health complex. Tom

OH I touched a liberal nerve didnt I?
I would be interested in finding out how many thousands of dollars a year, beyond just the taxes they already pay, they give to provide health care to the non insured.

After all, look at the liberal sweep in the presidential elections. Why all those people could pay an extra 15-20% taxes voluntarily an voila, healthcare for everyone.

Kind of reminds me of the whiners with Korah when they said, Lets go back to Egypt. The funny part is they didn't just decide and go. They didn't want to go unless everyone did.
Sounds like liberals on healthcare. They dont mind paying more taxes, but only if the everyone else has to pay too and preferably more than them.
If their morals were worth anything they would already be putting their money where their mouth is.

Tom,

"Seems there should be a tax or a mark down on price far beyond current levels."
---------------
I believe the best way for prices to be determined is, in as much as possible, by a "non-distorted" market. When artificial supports or demand is introduced by "tax excluded health benefits/i.e Corp. supplied employee health care benefits" OR gov't plans such as medicare the price/fees were artificially changed because of demand and an advantage to "one segment" of society at the expense of the "uncovered" is introduced.

This was never equitable (and I suggest at the core of the present difficulties at all levels where special interest tax privileges and regulations are employed...which has now reached a "conundrum reality level") and I complained in 1986 and in the GDA and to Gingrich at a Dental Meeting. of course... my voice is/was as important as a mosquito in a forest fire.

I am not necessarily opposed to federal grants for drugmakers research or State operated Professional schools which act as a "general welfare" health benefit for all taxpayers at that level.

It seems to me that prices are skewed more by "artificial demand" and "guaranteed payers/price supports" than the "initial grant" in most cases that really does act more as a "potential equal benefit" for all. Of course government grants rarely cover the entire cost of anything but often enables/legitimizes complete control over the process in the mind of the grantors. One could rightfully demand that the grant be repaid after successful creation and production, I suppose.

I also think it is a travesty for US drugmakers to sell drugs to foreign entities at a fraction of the US cost and then question why these drugs can not be recycled into the US at lower cost...which also is "free enterprise."

My comment above to Bevin was just a quick "macro" suggestion as to how to bring down fees and the "control" of "third party" payers not a "plan with microspecifics."

Thanks for your thoughts.

regards,
pat

>>> Why all those people could pay an extra 15-20% taxes voluntarily an voila, healthcare for everyone

Why do you think this is the right number?

Other Western countries PAY LESS than we pay now to DO MORE

/Bevin

Michael,
the liberal nerve you hit is the one that has been conditioned to associate Christianity with compassion, not money grubbing.

Aage
I suggest that is an incomplete view that is also a hallmark of modern liberalism. Responsibility is a foreign word but a very biblical one. 2 Thess 3:4-15

When people wanted welfare to be accountable and not a handout for scammers who complained? The liberals.
Liberals and the White house says there has been billions in fraud in medicare, but have they set up a committee in the house or senate or in the White house to investigate and prosecute?

Thank you Aage. Michael loves to carry water to Christianity in a sieve. Tom

Count me as one of those who would be happy to pay an extra 10 or 15% in taxes (I'm talking about percentage increase) if by doing so I could be assured that all my fellow citizens would have reasonable health care, and that the national debt would be paid down.

Don

Michael

The next time you get so angry at the liberal health care plan, just remind yourself that every congressman and senator that voted against it has a better health care plan than the one they refuse to give to their constituents. And you are paying for it. Vice Pres. Cheney used more health care dollars in eight years as VP than most Americans will use in a lifetime and he put a friend in the hospital for major surgery, from which his friend will never fully recover, also paid by a third party. Life is unfair, let us rejoice we are among those who can share to those in need. Tom

It might be of interest to note that every G.C. officer and employeee, every Union Conference and Local Conference officer and employee, every pastor, and every church school teacher and employee, every academy, college, and university administrator, faculty member and employee has or has access to a group health care plan. I personally doubt that any blogger is without health care coverage of some sort and/or leve. Each and every such plan is based upon equalizing the costs across a broad spectrum of reasonably healthy population.

Even state and federal perisoners guilty of minor to capital offenses have access to federal supervisied health care coverage. The state of Georgia twenty years ago was under a federal judges orders to improve the health care deliver to its inmates. I was the dental consultant to the Georgia Department of Rehabilitiation for over seven years. It was my task to work with the designers to insure that the facilities were adequately designed, the equipment and instruments were state of the art, and the design would protect the operators and the inmates from getting access to any "sharpies or insruments that could be modified into sharpies.

In addition, every lobbyist against health care coverage has health care coverage in their remuneration package.

All federal and state employees have access to health care coverage.Most local officers and employees have coverage.

It is th 40% without voice who are not covered. To be sure a large portion of these unfortunate people are high risk--society has failed them in many ways besides health care coverage. They are the ones who fell among theives on the road from Jericho. Be sure those same thieves will try to make the most out of any government program designed to help these unfortunates. But if they are caught and imprisoned--be assurded they will have good health care. Tom

Be sure those same thieves will try to make the most out of any government program designed to help these unfortunates. But if they are caught and imprisoned--be assurded they will have good health care. Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 20 November 2009 at 11:35

Agree with that 1st part Tom however they will never be hunted down and prosecuted just like they dont with medicare fraud etc.
That is why it is imperitive that the government not control healthcare.

It would seem a mediocre IQ is required to promote the excesses of government with all its fraud and waste as an template for everyone elses health care.

>>> Agree with that 1st part Tom however they will never be hunted down and prosecuted just like they dont with medicare fraud etc.

Michael, do you check your facts before you shoot yuor mouth off.

There has been, and there continues to be, a lot of work to police 'medicare fraud'

/Bevin EMT-Paramedic

Michael

In my consultative work with the Georgia prison system, I met some very scary guys with every high G.I.'s. Some equal to or exceeding some of the bloggers on spectrum. Low or high I.Q. is not a measure of hostility or right and wrong. Some are just too smart for they own good. Criminality is a mind-set not a meaure of intelligence. For your information, to twist as usual, I was on the jury of a capital case. The District Attorney later hosted a conference of District Attorneys of the SouthEast. He invited me to givea a lecture on the views of a member of the jury on a capital case. My lecture received highly favorable review in the daily newspaper. For starters one does not use the provocative language that lace your blogs. The accused receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 30 years for robbery in the process of committing a felony murder. He was 38 years old at the time of sentencing. That was 10 yers ago. While awaiting trial, he raped a 14 year old boy awaiting trial for raping and killing a 4 year old girl. The State of Georgia, by law, provided them both with the state of the art medical care. What about the tens of hundreds of 4 year old girls being denied proper food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. My mind turns immediately to Matt 25: 31-46, not Rush Limbaugh. Tom

Haha. I love these comments. With all the demagoguery from the right-wing fringe, you would think that the US government was conspiring to kill its citizens instead of aiming to make people's lives a little bit more secure.

Love it or hate it, health reform in the US is necessary. Not from a religious standpoint. From pure economics. It is widely accepted that the US uses the greatest percentage of GDP for health care expenditures and still underperforms on an international scale. It is disappointing.

It's hardly your fault if you lose your job (and by extension, health benefits) when your company closes down in the middle of recession. It's unethical for insurance companies to take your money and then abandon you when you're sick. Why should people go bankrupt when they have a heart attack? Why should it be extremely difficult for children with serious conditions to get insurance when they are adults?

The bill weaving its way through the Senate attempts to close these, and many other gaps. The House bill tries to do this as well. Are these bills perfect? HA!!! Not even close. Will it do some actual good, and help people live more productive, more secure, lives? Probably. (But we'll see...)

What is not good is the status quo. Or saying that people need to have more "responsibility". Or claiming that "Jesus doesn't like reform". Avoiding this issue does NOT make it go away.

But I do understand why right-wingers don't like these types of social programs- they are usually widely successful. And usually they cannot be repealed. For example... social insurance? Will live on. Medicare? Highly successful, and is even protected by Republicans, who now attack Democrats from the left (the LEFT!!!!!) trying to scare seniors into thinking that medicare will be abolished or whatever. Clearly, when the right time comes, Americans seem pretty OK with accepting what the extreme right-wing denounces as "socialism".

I certainly hope that reform passes-the Swiss-inspired program will likely bring something close to universal health coverage, which is great.

Bevin and Tom
I suggest you see the 60 minutes program for a small sense of the problem in one small area of the country. South Florida.

They only have 3 inspectors in all of South Florida. The law says medicare must reimburse within 16-30 days. With only 3 inspectors to check claims not many can be checked before the money goes out.
Medicare handles a billion claims a year and pays out 430 billion dollars.

Understand, its not that they dont want to prosecute. Its that the system is made so poorly that nearly anyone can do it and there are nearly no resources or effective laws or strategies to find fraudulent claims before the money is sent direct deposit. The scammer closes down every business after 30 days and opens a new one.

They had one guy who got a 12 year sentence for stealing 20 million dollars. Anyone who knows the system knows that with bed space at a premium and budgets being cut, he will only spend a fraction of that time behind bars.
Also read the NY Times article says, "The Federal agency that oversees Medicare points to the program's tiny overhead as proof it is well administered. But recent reports suggest that Medicare's administrative costs are shockingly low, below 2 percent of costs, because Medicare is shockingly unsupervised. The amount of fraud and waste is huge, and supervision of the quality of medical care provided recipients is largely nonexistent. In recent weeks, Federal auditors have estimated that $23 billion in Medicare payments last year -- about one dollar in every seven -- was due to fraud or mistakes. In Medicare's home-health program, which spends about $20 billion a year treating about four million elderly people, fraud and waste account for perhaps 40 percent of expenditures."

What are the chances of catching the tens of thousands of people who are scamming 40 percent of Medicares budget?

When bumpkins point to Social security and medicare as success stories one can only conclude they are woefully misinformed and dont care how pathetic and bad the program is as long as they get theirs. Many comments have been made in these blogs on Spectrum about how low the administrative costs are. This is another example of the ignorance of how the system works.

I really hope you educate your self on the issues. One needs more input that your own sensibilities if solutions are to be found.

http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/how-much-fraud.php
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/01/opinion/fraud-and-waste-in-medicare.ht...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n

Medicare and Medicaod were LBJ's pet bills. In order to get them passed a Republican lead Congress LBJ had to gut all the controls out of the bills. You now have the result. Two chiropractors in Gary, Ind. ripped the Government out of over 5 million dolllars so now chiropractors are litterally written of the bill. The prlblem was and is that the Democrates trusted the Republicans and look what we got!
where money doth abound greed doth much more abound. The Republicans said--let it abound. Tom

P.S. Michael

Please read Johseph Califano's book The American Health Care Revolution: Who lives, Who Dies, Who Pays. It will outline the entire debate in Congress during the LBJ Administratin.

Former Gerold Ford was a leading Repblican in the House during that time--he organized the rebelllion to strip the bill of all controls. LBJ wanted the bill so bad he accepted the bill as written without the controls his men had written into the bill. The oposition in those days was primarily the AMA and the AHA and a strong Republican Congress.

AARP found the last version of the health bill and then teamed up with an insurance underwriter to "sell" health insurance to older people. Greed doeth abound. That doesnt compute to denying needy of proper care. Tom

Michael,

for your information there are private companies searching for Medicare fraud, because if they find it,

(1) the company that is caught gets to refund a lot more than they scammed

(2) the people doing the fraud get

(3) the finder gets a huge finders fee

Yes, there is still some fraud in the system - but no where near as much as you are portraying.

I work for an ambulance company. I write patient care reports that are used as the basis for billing Medicare. And every year I get training in the legal issues around Medicare fraud.

The biggest costs in the system are caused by the inefficient methods that are used to deliver care, and the unnecessary tests and procedures caused by the legal system

The five big things that need to be fixed are

(1) The malpractise system, whereby doctors pay too much, injured patients don't receive enough, and the lawyers and insurance companies complain about those terrible doctors all the way to the bank

(2) The unnecessary tests and procedures caused by (1)

(3) The failure to negotiate the costs of the procedures and equipment - paying far more than is necessary for drugs and equipment and some of the people

(4) Requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide free treatment for the uninsured, so that they have to pass those costs on to their covered patients, so the insurance companies and lawyers can again take their cut to the bank

(5) Providing expensive treatment late in the disease cycle RATHER THAN cheap treatment earlier to avoid the problem

/Bevin

"It would seem a mediocre IQ is required to promote the excesses of government with all its fraud and waste as an template for everyone elses health care."

Jeez Michael! And a Happy Sabbath to you too. Actually us mediocre IQ folks don't understand such subtle language and so next time just call us stupid and be done with it.

Oh wait, here we go:

"When bumpkins point to Social security and medicare as success stories. . . "

Yup, yup now that we get. But seriously, such name calling is less than helpful.

Thanks for the ancient history Tom, however this isn't Medo-Persia and laws can be changed, just look at how Obama funded international abortion as soon as he got into office.
You have a very distorted view of cause and effect.

Michael,

I am assuming that: you are under 65; or that if you have had that birthday and chose not to be covered by Medicare. Which is it?

Please show us where there is no fraud in any billion dollar programs or corporations: Goldmine Sucks, Madoff, Aetna or the largest healthcare insurance companies? (Goldmine Sucks, recently reporteed a record $3 BILLION profit, but paid an effective tax rate of 0.6 percent last year.*) We would all welcome such a low rate! *Business Week.

Remember, if we want more investigators to check for fraud in any of these programs, we must pay more in taxes, which you are evidently happy to pay. There ain't no free lunch: Pay now, or pay later.

When you have proven that you do not wish to benefit from Medicare at 65, it will have much more meaning. Until then, enjoy life, it's not forever, nor without illness at some time. Unless there's a huge bank account, health insurance is the backup plan for the large majority of citizens. Most fist world nations believe this is one of the best uses for their tax dollars. Only in the U.S. do we prefer to fund huge defense budgets with nary a blink but to offer universal healthcare is a long, drawn-out six months debate in Congress.
Doesn't that indicate that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the other nations who benefit greatly from our largesse that U.S. citizens are way down on the totem pole of beneficence?

Thank you Elaine

Michael you have your history mixed up. To make your satire have meaning you should have referred to the Code of Hammurabi 1790 B.C. Medo-Persia was 590-580 B.C. After all Moses took his lead from Hammaurabi. Just a sample:

195: If a son strike his father, his hands shall be [cut] off. (4)

196: If a [noble-]man put out the eye of another [noble-]man, his eye shall be put out. (5)

197: If he break another [noble-]man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

198: If he put out the eye of a [commoner], or break the bone of a [commoner], he shall pay one [silver] mina.

199: If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200: If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.

201: If he knock out the teeth of a [commoner], he shall pay one-third of a [silver] mina.

Seems more in line with your thought pattern. Tom

For Michael's benefit, I have a PhD in mathematics, which does not come to stupid people. Don

today we provide such a safety net using ambulances and ER's at great expense
/Bevin
Posted by: bevin | 19 November 2009 at 3:20

So what about implementing what has been tried in many parts of Africa: bicycle ambulances! That way, it could help reduce the cost of health care as well as reducing the global warming.

See for example: http://www.youtube.com/user/ITDPEurope

Tom,
I was thinking more of Esther where the King wanted to change the law but couldn't because they believed that a law that needed to be changed labeled its maker a fool.
Elaine,
You dance all around talking about if I want to use medicare or not and that all big institutions have waste. You say, "Remember, if we want more investigators to check for fraud in any of these programs, we must pay more in taxes, which you are evidently happy to pay. There ain't no free lunch: Pay now, or pay later.", which is one of the silliest things I have read as late. I doubt that a few more inspectors would cost 60 billion dollars a year. Didn't you read the reports? That's the point at which the extra employees would balance out the fraud.
Don't you think that the system could use a few more inspectors paid for out of the billions in fraud?

What I find the most disappointing is that many of you can be shown how pathetic the system is and that being verify-ably proved and you still defend it. Worse you want more of it. You want those same skill sets and architects to bugger up health care too. Amazing!

Not one of you laments the gross incompetence or will even admit the extent of the problem. None of you offer any solutions to fix the problems or give any indication that you even find the incompetence offensive.

Further, how many times does one have to listen to the simplistic characterizations of Christianity as taking care of people and not money grubbing as if it was an either or?
No one said they didnt want people assisted. We just said you need to do it in an intelligent and responsible way.
Perhaps you should remember other financial and biblical principals like, "For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost?" Luke 14:28
None of you has shown me you even know that text exists. Except Pat.

>>> Not one of you laments the gross incompetence or will even admit the extent of the problem.

On the contrary, I listed above what needs to be fixed in the USA

>>> None of you offer any solutions to fix the problems

The 5 problems I listed above have their solution implicit in the way the problem is stated

>>> You want those same skill sets and architects to bugger up health care too

Nope, I want to get the lawyers and the insurance companies basically out of the loop - and they are the ones who have buggered it up, because they have a financial interest in buggering it up

/Bevin

Some of these comments reflect the asinine idea that private healthcare has no costs, and that the government-operated healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal congressional healthcare) are all essentially much more expensive!

All of these government operated healthcare entities are defined as "non-profit" while all the private healthcare insurers are "fo-profit" else why would they offer insurance?
The profit margins vary for these private corporations, but their revenues point to profitable stocks worthy of private investors; something never offered by government healthcare.

Check the overhead or administrative costs for comparison. The argument is often made that "government bureaucrats" come between patient and doctor, ignoring that a "for-profit" insurance comes between patient and doctor for the larger public now insured.

Why has the government subsidized the Medicare Advantage program which is directly in competition with straight Medicare? Why does the government ever need to subsidize private insurers, and especially in competition with itself?

Another valuable clue: Check the insurance lobbyists' contributions to congress.

61 members of Congress—39 in the Senate, 22 in the House, 38 Democrats and 23 Republicans—got money from 10 or more outside lobbyists whose healthcare or health insurance industry clients also contributed to their campaigns.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., collected lobbyist “bundles” from 14 major healthcare organizations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., actually led the list, with 22 organizations—though much of that money was directed at his presidential campaign last year.

Other leading recipients of combined lobbyist-client giving were Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Democratic Senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Mark Udall of Colorado and Max Bacuus.

____________________________________________________________

Congress is an "equal opportunity" for healthcare lobbyists.

Pat,

I very intentionally inserted the phrase “regardless of Adam Smith or Marx” to reinforce my original point: many continually filter their Christian experience through their socio-economic-political leanings, rather than the other way around. As someone I know who places such an emphasis on Sola Scriptura, I thought you would appreciate my attempt at excluding “extra-scriptura” principles in comparing various countries’ assimilation of Christian/Scriptural principles and values, intentional or not.

Regarding your statements:

You say, "(regardless of Adam Smith or Marx)?"
I would suggest that is a pretty big "regardless" to simply overlook to those interested in "sustainable individual rights and liberty.…”

and

“I am simply saying that GOD has less to say concerning the present discussion than does a particular political-socio-economic opinion/view for the "delivery system"...which is closer to Adam Smith or Marxian thought.”

Am I correct in assuming you now believe “extra-scriptural” sources (Adam Smith or Marx) are more relevant (let alone the only) influences in deciding how we act and what values we hold with respect to “God and the American Health Care System”, and other practical, rubber-meets-the-road, real-life issues? ; )

If your argument is, “I believe in Sola Scriptura in matters of eternal salvation; but Adam Smith or Marx in matters of American health care delivery”, I would propose this is a major reason many unchurched in the developed world find organized religion, Christianity in particular, irrelevant. If a Christian’s eternal salvation doesn’t inform important issues in their present reality, why should they be interested? At least in the under-developed world, religion usually means better education, upward social mobility and other such practical benefits. Is this an indication of Christianity in the West “having a form of Godliness, but denying the power (to alleviate suffering, release the captive, deliver justice to the oppressed) thereof”? Can’t God’s Kingdom break through occasionally into Caesar’s in the context of the life of a Christian?

Please understand, I am not making a “God is on my (liberal/progressive) side” argument, but a “God may actually have something to say about how I act and what values I hold” position (regardless of where I stand on the conservative-liberal spectrum, hence my inclusion of both party’s “talking points” in my description of Protestant/Christianity). It is a subtle but important distinction: between asking whether God is on my side vs. whether I (not someone else) am following his way.

Medicare fraud is a reality but fraud is no more endemic to a government program than a privately run one (Blackwater, anyone?). I don't know what the Medicare fraud numbers are, but if Michael were right, it would be inexplicable why the Bush administration, his kind of people, did nothing about it. It seems way to convenient to suddenly become concerned about Medicare fraud as an ideological argument just at the time when Democrats propose reforms. It reeks of political opportunism.

The real fear behind all the angst about government health care is that it succeed. The health care industry would not be pouring tens of millions of dollars into fighting the public option if they believed, like Michael, that it was doomed to fail and that it would be so corrupt as implode under its own weight. They are fighting to protect their profits against a public option that could put them out of business, not out of ineffectiveness but by their success.

And I note once more that to Christians belonging to the Republican denomination are only scandalized when their anti-government Reagan rhetoric is trampled upon. The fact that nearly 50 million people still have inadequate health care apparently is not. "Those to whom much has been given, of them little is expected."

>>> it would be inexplicable why the Bush administration, his kind of people, did nothing about it

Over the last few years of the Bush administration there was a very serious effort to tighten up on Medicare fraud - the initial rounds of prosecution under Obama were based on investigations and laws started under the Bush administration

/Bevin

It is quite possible that even with the inherent waste of the gov't system, it is still more likely to deliver a better product because the cost of the waste might still be less than the cost of the corruption and profit-mongering of the private system.

Pointing fingers at the waste of the gov't system is only helpful if you can show that it is greater than the financial shenanigans of the private system. So far I don't think that has been the case when you compare our systems now.

"60 Minutes" tonight had a very informative segment on the very expensive costs of healthcare for the last six months of life. Because the present structure today pays for services rendered, no questions asked, just the cost of one day in ICU can be more than $10k, and there is absolutely no limits on what procedures are performed when there is no chance of life beyond a few days.

Even elderly patients with vital organs failing, can be given liver and lung transplants, because there is no previous instruction otherwise from patient or family.

All this, in a "Christian nation" that has a hope of life after death, adamantly refuses to admit that no one gets out of this life alive. It is the obvious denial of death that allows such totally ineffective procedures when one has only a few weeks, even days of life.

Refusing to "ration" this end-of-life care will eventually bankrup this nation unless we honestly face the results of such a policy.

Everyone, who hasn't yet specifically left instructions to be implemented when death is imminent, should do so today. Most people, when asked, will say they prefer to die at home, and not in a hospital connected to all sorts of machines; yet unless that is clearly stated and all the family agrees beforehand, those procedures may be performed.

Because no patients ever pay or even see those bills (they are paid by their insurance, often Medicare) they are completely unaware of the charges for even a few more days, usually almost comatose, before death.

This is where rationing should be applied, not by refusing to cover the millions who are now uninsured.

"Some of these comments reflect the asinine idea that private healthcare has no costs, and that the government-operated healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, Federal congressional healthcare) are all essentially much more expensive!"

{Yes I'm sure that's it. The government can run medicare with a 60 billion dollar deficit from fraud alone, cheaper than a for profit company can. That's how efficient they are. They can pay everybody's costs and throw 60 billion a year in the fire and still do it cheaper. Talk about asinine."

"All of these government operated healthcare entities are defined as "non-profit" while all the private healthcare insurers are "fo-profit" else why would they offer insurance?"

{ So if its labeled non-profit one can burn 60 billion a year and still claim the moral high ground huh? Losing 60 billion a year pretty much guarantees its non profit doesnt it? A chimpanzee can do equally well. }

"Why does the government ever need to subsidize private insurers, and especially in competition with itself?"
Think. Medicare cannot be escaped. Participation in private programs are voluntary. Medicare was never intended to do everything. Supplemental programs make money and provide value or no one would buy them would they? When the government is losing that much money on only one of its programs, why wouldn't they want to get into the supplemental market?}

You opine so woefully about how the denomination spends every cent and want a 30 follow up study on seminar converts but you turn a blind eye to 60 billion in medicare fraud?

I am well aware of fraud in all the insurance plans. Name one that does not have fraud.

What are some solutions you can offer that will: insure all citizens more cheaply and more effectively than the present. Also, how will coverage be paid for?

Should businesses be forced to cover its employees health insurance? This results in costs passed on to consumers, so is counter-productive for cost containment.

It's very easy to opine on the faults, but what alternative solutions can be offered?

Loma Linda and Kettering are under attack by liberal society and gay marriage does Branson defend Adventist healthcare from forces imposing secular values on reproduction marriage and more? IVF for single people? No. Gay people? No. Answers please.

Neville,

"Am I correct in assuming you now believe “extra-scriptural” sources (Adam Smith or Marx) are more relevant (let alone the only) influences in deciding how we act and what values we hold with respect to “God and the American Health Care System”, and other practical, rubber-meets-the-road, real-life issues? ; )"

Neville please show/develop for me your OT/NT "biblical/scriptural mandate" of "values" that requires me to accept the proposition that "the state" is to "provide" for the "payment and delivery" of medical care. I will be interested in your findings.

As far as "other real life issues" is the state required to use these "same values" to clothe, feed, house all citizens also?

This article may be of interest to some on these issues of "Morality and Economics" and a response to US Catholic Bishops
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa050.html

regards,
pat

Elaine, I agree with you about end-of-life costs.

However my experiences in the ER and hospital haven't exposed me to many cases of truely outrageous waste here, wuch as the following hints at.

>>> Even elderly patients with vital organs failing, can be given liver and lung transplants, because there is no previous instruction otherwise from patient or family.

I doubt such a pt would get to the front of the queue

Instead what I have seen is pts who should be on DNR's not having one, and thus running up ER costs. There have been changes in the instructions to the ambulance crews to reduce this - there is an increased awareness that bringing a person with <0.5% likelyhood of ever being discharged into an ER is a waste of resources.

Our instructions for cardiac arrest used to be to intubate and continue CPR all the way to the hospital, delivering pts there who would either die or be unconscious on a vent for the indefinite future.

These days our instructions are to treat on scene until we either get a pulse (then transport) or we have done everything possible for 15 minutes (then stop efforts and call the medical examiner).

The secret is Advance Directives - and, surprise surprise, the Republicans are against paying for patient/doctor conversations about them!

Why? Because DNR's will deprive the medical equipment, drug, and tertiary care places (eg: "vent farms") of money for treatment that we would not subject a dog to.

/Bevin

The recent release of an AARP study found that drug makers had raised the wholesale price of brand-name drugs by 9%, or $10 billion, in the past year. That's the biggest price increase in 17 years.

"Big Pharma" lobbyists had made a deal with the Obama administration and key Senate leaders to do just the opposite. In agreeing to support the health care overhaul, the pharmaceutical industry pledged to cut up to $80 billion in prescription costs over the next decade.

In return, Medicare, a huge buyer of prescription drugs, was barred from negotiating lower prices or directing recipients away from expensive medicines when cheaper, equally effective options were available!

Tis appears evidence of the industry's chicanery. Why should this be? The multibillion-dollar payments the drug industry began receiving when 6.4 million low-income people were transferred from Medicaid--to Medicare in 2006.

The pharmaceutical industry stands to gain more than 30 million new customers under this legislation. The industry must be relishing the opportunity to rip them off, too.

It's time to hold drug companies responsible for their price gouging.

Elaine
"In return, Medicare, a huge buyer of prescription drugs, was barred from negotiating lower prices or directing recipients away from expensive medicines when cheaper, equally effective options were available!"

The problem is right in front of your face and you completely miss it. Why would Medicare agree to buy the most expensive drugs when cheaper, equally effective options were available?

Why would they care if drug prices went up 10 billion a year when the way they operate costs 60 billion a year in just fraud?

You complain about negotiated deals that are above board and want to blame the drug companies for gouging when Medicare loses 600% more money than the drug price increase each and every year?
If Medicare was a ship with lots of holes in it, Elaine would be out plugging the nail holes while the ones from cannon balls were not even noticed.

Pat,

You said:

Neville please show/develop for me your OT/NT "biblical/scriptural mandate" of "values" that requires me to accept the proposition that "the state" is to "provide" for the "payment and delivery" of medical care. I will be interested in your findings.

As far as "other real life issues" is the state required to use these "same values" to clothe, feed, house all citizens also?
________________________

In our American constitutional republic, the state/government/”Caesar” is us, “We the People…”

Thank you for challenging me to show/develop an OT/NT scriptural justification for my position. I am not a “proof text” or topical study type of person myself. I tend to read scripture narratively and look for the broader, over-arching themes; but accepting your challenge was quite affirming to me. It helped reinforce my intuitive belief that the Judeo-Christian tradition has this long and wonderful history of healing and advocating for the poor, oppressed, the alien, the marginalized, “the other.”
Below is just a quick sampling of texts I found; there were countless others:

2 Chronicles 7:14 (New International Version)
14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

Job 5:17-18 (New International Version)
17 "Blessed is the man whom God corrects;
so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. [a]
18 For he wounds, but he also binds up;
he injures, but his hands also heal.

Proverbs 29:7 (New International Version)
7 The righteous care about justice for the poor,
but the wicked have no such concern.

Isaiah 1:17 (New International Version)
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

Isaiah 10
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?

Isaiah 57:17-19 (New International Version)
17 I was enraged by his sinful greed;
I punished him, and hid my face in anger,
yet he kept on in his willful ways.
18 I have seen his ways, but I will heal him;
I will guide him and restore comfort to him,
19 creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel.
Peace, peace, to those far and near,"
says the LORD. "And I will heal them."

Jeremiah 8:22 (New International Version)
22 Is there no balm in Gilead?
Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
for the wound of my people?

Ezekiel 22:29 (New International Version)
29 The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice.

Ezekiel 34:4 (New International Version)
4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.

Amos 5:12 (New International Version)
12 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

Zechariah 7:8-10 (New International Version)
8 And the word of the LORD came again to Zechariah: 9 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'

Malachi 3:5 (New International Version)
5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.

Matthew 9:35 (New International Version)
35Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

Matthew 10:8 (New International Version)
8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.
Matthew 23:23 (New International Version)
23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Matthew 25:36 (New International Version)
36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Matthew 25:38-40 (New International Version)
38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Luke 9:6 (New International Version)
6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.

Luke 10:9 (New International Version)
9Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.'

I know, your first objection will be: nothing in the above texts says the state should be responsible for health care delivery to its citizens. My position is that these texts, read in context, at the very least, inform our actions and values as citizens of Caesar’s kingdom. I’d challenge you to lay out your (Sola Scriptura) OT/NT argument that the free market should determine the same (regardless of Adams, Marx or the CATO institute).

A new wrinkle to add to the healthcare debate:

Christian Scientists seek reimbursement for prayers

By William Wan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 23, 2009

The calls come in at all hours: patients reporting broken bones, violent coughs, deep depression.

Prue Lewis listens as they explain their symptoms. Then Lewis -- a thin, frail-looking woman from Columbia Heights -- simply says, "I'll go to work right away." She hangs up, organizes her thoughts and begins treating her clients' ailments the best way she knows how: She prays.

This is health care in the world of Christian Science, where the sick eschew conventional medicine and turn to God for healing. Christian Scientists call it "spiritual health care," and it is a practice they are battling to insert into the health-care legislation being hammered out in Congress.

Leaders of the Church of Christ, Scientist, are pushing a proposal that would help patients pay someone like Lewis for prayer by having insurers reimburse the $20 to $40 cost.
The provision was stripped from the bill the House passed

The Internal Revenue Service allows prayer treatments to be itemized on income tax forms as medical expenses. And a few federal insurance programs, such as those for military families, already reimburse for prayer.

Neville,

Thanks for your list and I agree with every one in its biblical context.

Are you suggesting that "In our American constitutional republic, the state/government/”Caesar” is us, “We the People…” is the equivalent of Israel in any way in the OT? I thought we were not a "theocracy."

Have you considered the context of the "land based system" and its 7 yr. and 50 yr. release and how that specifically relates to the "prophetic warnings and judgments on Israel?" ( I am speaking of the “economic” component but it is not separate from the other covenant violations that brought captivity.)

Captivity brought rest to the land in many respects.

There was always to be consideration for the poor by individuals and respect for the covenant laws of justice. There was no call that I am aware of however in the OT for the King to provide "provision" as such, other than allow gleaning the fields, but rather the responsibility as “the anointed or prophet” to enforce covenant law. Can you demonstrate for me where "national provision" for Israelites was a part of the "states" responsibility in the OT, rather than individual mercy for the poor? The economicaly oppressed, I suggest were so because of violation of covenant by “wealthy land owners” not practicing jubilee and its results.

Can you demonstrate to me in the NT where these activities Jesus spoke of were directed by Jesus towards the government of Rome or later governments rather than the responsibility of our personal actions towards the less fortunate as the “spiritual kingdom of Christ?”

While Christians are to be merciful to all as was the “good Samaritan”, I suggest the direct “context” of Mt.25 is the reward for assisting His disciples/followers through the ages as “these brothers of mine” who would suffer for spreading the “gospel of the Kingdom of Christ.”

I am not specifically opposed to Caesar helping the poor and oppressed. The question remains, is there a “specific biblical moral-value just plan” for doing that by “governments among the gentiles" that some would suggest to us? In actual fact, by letter and principle, all world governments today are in the violation of biblical “economic” covenant law of the OT. I suggest they all are simply practicing “moral relativism” of their specific political-socio-economic concepts with varying degrees of closeness to Marx or Smith. (Exception… Theocracies with their own economic directive)

In the US, I suggest the Constitution leaves provision for the poor and needy with the states rather than the Federal government...but that is an aside. I am not opposed to States, along side of personal charity, offering public assistance and health aide to the truly needy and less fortunate. They must however balance their books/budget by law.

The federal government “political practice” especially in the past 50 yrs has been Rep. And Dems. following their own “special interest “ without balancing the budget and simply putting more debt on the back of future generations. This practice creates "a false weight and balance” of fiat currency and creates price rises over time due to monetary debasement. This is particularly hard on the poor and those on fixed income. I find EGW’s comment very interesting and accurate on TM.p.331 in that regard. That action is “theft” by government and is immoral.

It seems that you may be desiring government to carry out your specific “biblical” moral concepts of provision that you have gleaned from your understanding of scripture and apply to the state without regards to the “justice of how it is accomplished.” How does that flesh out, as well as “the US Catholic Bishops Social Teachings”, in regards to the “Separation of church and State” that is so often scornfully cast by the political and religious left towards the “conservative moral majority?” Is this consistent application? Is not their moral action platform in most cases a stabilizing factor for society?

My point primarily is that we live in a “divided kingdom” in the present age. Some from many perspectives seek and use religion as “utilitarian” in order to make the purposes of the “Kingdom of God” become synonymous with the “kingdom of this world.”

It can take “many forms” in the effort to do so by the “left and right” but…It is not and never will be the same in the present age!

So,I still maintain, "God and the American Health care system", What has God "for sure" got to do with "the delivery" of it?

Regards,
pat

Pat,

No, I don’t equate our 21st century American constitutional republic with a 2000 BC theocracy. Remember, I’m not the Sola Scriptura/fundamentalist/literalist; I’m the progressive contextualist/relativist, right? : )

I am gratified to know you are “…not opposed to States, along side of personal charity, offering public assistance and health aide to the truly needy and less fortunate.” But I still find it curious how you almost reluctantly and apologetically attribute these beliefs more to the American constitution than to a scriptural mandate. What if you were an SDA Christian in North Korea or Cuba, would you just tow the political line? Would your Christian values in that context be subservient to Caesar’s, in the name of “separation of church and state”? Daniel, under various kings, Joseph in Pharaoh’s court and Moses in Egypt were examples of those who let their spiritual identity inform their worldly citizenship; advocating for and pushing through government policies that benefited many. Were they trying to, in your words, “seek and use religion as “utilitarian” in order to make the purposes of the “Kingdom of God” become synonymous with the “kingdom of this world”? Where they advancing political agendas on the premise that “God is on my side”; or were they simply moving forward asking, “What does God require of me today, in my present context”—regardless of where they stood in the socio-economic-political spectrum of their day?

Back to the present, aren’t we fully-integrated human beings: social, political, economic and spiritual? As Christian citizens of Caesar’s American kingdom, are we precluded from participating in the American process of public advocacy and self-governance? If, based on my Kingdom of God values, I am able to convince others in Caesar’s kingdom, to help alleviate suffering, free captives and deliver justice to the oppressed, am I merely using religion as “utilitarian” to “practice moral relativism”; or could I say that, like Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Esther, and others in the scriptural narrative, I am letting my spiritual identity inform my role in whatever worldly context God has placed me?

On a different note, your exegesis of Matthew 25 and the Good Samaritan story would be more reasonable if the protagonist in the latter were not the hated, “outsider/other” Samaritan. In trying to make these parables about “taking care of one’s own”, you seem to completely ignore the jarringly obvious subversiveness of Jesus’ casting choice. If he were telling the story today, he very well may have identified the ones who passed on the other side of the road as a Conference employee and a Seminary professor; and the one who stopped to help, a hated Taliban terrorist.

Although I don’t limit my moral authority to “Sola Scriptura”, I find it ironic that I, the professed liberal/progressive, seem to find scripture more informative on contemporary socio-economic-political issues than you, the avowed theological conservative. : )

Regarding your question: So, I still maintain, "God and the American Health care system", What has God "for sure" got to do with "the delivery" of it?

My response: You ought to know better, us liberal/progressives don’t have many “for sures”; everything is subject to progressive revelation and new and better understandings. But this I do know: God uses his people to accomplish his works. I hope I am worthy of being considered one his people, participating in the work he is presently doing, bringing good news and healing to a hungry, hurting world.

In any case, thanks for the stimulating discussion. We may never agree completely, but hopefully, through the conversations and attempts to understand each other, the Spirit of Wisdom will become manifest.

Peace,
Neville

Neville,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The primary difference in the "back to the present" time is that I do not choose to use or depend on the "financial means of goverment" to bring about a "Neo-kingdom of God." I do not impose my understanding of "spiritual-moral provision" by government on those who would differ. Government is law and force...not love and charity.

That paradigm of "the kingdom" will bite back and there is no precedent in scripture for it for the present age.

In Christ, the promise of the saints inheritance is now laid up above.

regards,
pat

Neville,

Branson has reportedly cited Scriptures, regardless of the label you like to assign those you engage in conversation, either conservative or progressive, in response to your and Pat's question:

“What does all this have to do with God?” was the first inquiry the panel received during the time for questions and answers. Although he disavowed speaking for God, Branson swiftly drew the audience’s attention to a number of theological resources. One of these is the Sabbath with its mandated rest for male and female slaves. Another is the “Year of Jubilee” in which slaves were to be set free, debts forgiven and the land allowed to lay fallow. Jesus drew upon this in his inaugural sermon. According to Luke 4: 1 – 19, citing the Old Testament, Jesus declared that he had come to bring good news to the poor, release the captives and let the oppressed go free.

My question for you: How far will you rely on the government to enforce your moral/religious values?

Briefly, another way of viewing the issue of universal health care in America is in the framework of church and state relations. What has "God" (the church) to do with the state's role in reforming health care in this country?

Joselito,

Neville-"My question for you: How far will you rely on the government to enforce your moral/religious values?

Briefly, another way of viewing the issue of universal health care in America is in the framework of church and state relations. What has "God" (the church) to do with the state's role in reforming health care in this country?"
-----
Well framed and stated.

Somehow I keep thinking of how pre-WWII Germany and Hitler used lofty socio-economic goals and visions plus the utility of the "german church" to create what appeared to them would be the makings of a wonderful new order.

That is my innate fear in the powerful "potion" of church-state unity for social provision...and it will fail because ultimately it is not " normal human action and economically viable" and then there needs to be a scapegoat/cause.

regards,
pat

Neville
I share your ironic insight:

"Although I don’t limit my moral authority to “Sola Scriptura”, I find it ironic that I, the professed liberal/progressive, seem to find scripture more informative on contemporary socio-economic-political issues than you, the avowed theological conservative. : )"

I think part of it is that Protestantism, from the beginning, was focused on doctrine and not people. Theological acuity was elevated to the status of divine lithmus test. Being a friend or foe of God hinged on your ability to distinguish between imputed and imparted righteousness. Whether you were a decent, compassionate human being who found inspiration in the life and words of Jesus was strictly a secondary concern.

Even though the Adventist church had trouble understanding the finer points of Protestant doctrine, it lived off its ethos and turned the movement into a society for the promotion of correct doctrine. Adventist pastors for generations were not trained to minister to the needs of real people; their job was to make sure that people learned the doctrinal passwords that would vouchsafe entry into Heaven itself. Real people and their needs have always been a distant second in conservative Protestant churches.

What is a bit bizarre is that modern conservative Protestants have melded their Protestant principles with right-wing political dogma, which says that people in need are for the most part lazy, good-for-nothing people--unworthy poor, as the Victorians dismissively called them--people whose fate should be of no concern to Christians. Here are some illustrative verses from the Conservative Bible (The Gospel of Michael, posted above on this thread):

THE MIDRASH OF MICHAEL ON HOW TO JUSTIFY LACK OF COMPASSION
2 Thessalonians 3

"6-9 Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn't sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we worked our fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldn't be burdened with taking care of us. And it wasn't because we didn't have a right to your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example of diligence, hoping it would prove contagious.

10-13 Don't you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And now we're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don't slack off in doing your duty."

Questioning whether the church should ever be involved with the state is irresponsible and shows a lack of history.

Did the SDA church take a political stand against slavery? Did it take a position for or against women's suffrage? Did it take a stand for civil rights and integration of schools?
Should it have?

If the church doesn't take a stand for human rights, it is not only worthless, but it claims impotence as it matters not one bit if it espouses correct doctrine and denies charity, it is tinkling brass and clashing cymbals, to paraphrase Paul.

Are people attracted to a church based on its correct doctrine? How can they determine what is correct? However, the simplest mind of a child can easily understand charity and love. If the church refuses to stand for the poorest and neediest among us it is worthless and antiquated--standing for nothing but its pious reflection.

Aage,

It has not yet been demonstrated by Neville or You to me how "your application" of..."find scripture more informative on contemporary socio-economic-political issues than you, the avowed theological conservative"... has any precedent for "government application of Provision" that you seemingly seek.

Scripture IS full of how citizens/individuals of the "kingdom of God/Christ" are to treat others.

It is not full of precedent on how the "kingdoms of this world" are to apply it "for the church."

If one thinks government ends and methods are the "cat's meow" simply stick to a "humanist" agenda without dragging "God" into it.

regards,
pat

Elaine,

"Did the SDA church take a political stand against slavery? Did it take a position for or against women's suffrage? Did it take a stand for civil rights and integration of schools?
Should it have? If the church doesn't take a stand for human rights"

I suggest laws of "equal protection" under law differ from concepts of "provision" by the state. The state must always "take to give" or create monetary inflation (or both) and that is not the situation under those concepts you have mentioned above.

State principles and allow people to vote. The Institutional church should not be directly involved in the "legislative process."

regards,
pat

Though I personally don't find labels very helpful in advancing this conversation, for your information, Neville and I happen to share the same cultural heritage of a transported Western brand of 19th-century American Adventist Christian fundamentalism in our country. Strangely enough, although I've been coming almost every week to Hollywood for an entire year, since November of last year, I can count only two persons who have been actively involved in any kind of leadership role in that professedly progressive, socially-engaged religious community with whom I've had the extraordinary opportunity of face to face conversation.

Aage
The quote I supplied far surpasses your trite usage and application.
The text contains the elements of self responsibility, work, the responsibility of others towards those would expect you to do everything for them and many other principals. Perhaps you should read the studies of the average persons expenses and see where they prioritise their spending. http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/2392684.html
One of the most interesting observations is how much the average American spends of health insurance compared with beer and cigarettes. Its not that the average American doesnt have the money to spend on a health care plan, its that they choose not to.
These principals sail over your head as having any part whatsoever in the principals of a government run health care and how God plays into that which is the topic of this thread.

No matter how you wish it was, this coin has 2 sides.
You even put a title to the text that is not one of comprehension and intelligence but of personal sensibility. You would paint those who want responsible sustainable change as ones who would oppress the poor and enslave their children. If that is your level of understanding then I feel sorry that you cannot grasp the difference.

Your usage of the passage above shows a twisted proof texting of the point you would espouse.
You opine about the government run aspects as if any question of fiscal responsibility is conservative Christians oppressing the poor. If you had a passing understanding of Luke you would see those questions are appropriate and biblical.

Luke 14:28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?

These texts which we hold as obvious and useful in reality seemingly hold no insight or material for consideration in your world view. That is your loss.

David Brooks in his column today in the NYTimes, offers the main reason that the U.S. diiffers from all the other first world countries in their approach to monetary spending. It is a question of values.

In the U.S., because of its original founders, an independent spirt was preeminent and it was a "do-it-yourself" country that depended on individual freedom with the unspoken motto of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and professed to rely on no one other than self.

This, of course, is completely fallacious. We all need government to maintain our personal property, protect our homes from fire, police protection, and public schools--all part of the American system that gradually realized that there is a limit to what individuals can accomplish and concerted effort from all is required.

In the European countries, many not only provide healthcare for all, but some provide free university educations. They assume that their nation benefits from these provisions.

In the U.S., with our huge defense budget, increased with futile wars, we continue to deplete our unlimited resources and thus have opted to spend increasing amounts on unnecessary wars with no provable benefits, while leaving many who need healthcare to struggle as best they can.

None of us, except the double-digit millionaires, can afford to pay for some of the necessary treatments to prolong their lives. While at the end of life, these expensive treatments should be monitored as to the benefits vs. costs, that is not what anyone would wish on children who desperately need such costly treatments and must depend on bake sales or donations to fund such treatments and procedures to give them even a normal life expectancy.

Could anyone here afford to pay for their child's bone marrow transplant, or heart transplant without insurance (if the insurance would cover it)? Consider the problem with a poor family. Should the child be told that it is not affordable, go home and die? Already, there are needless deaths because of lack of care. How many more are we willing to see? Is it because we willingly accept that many of our brave soldiers will lose their life in far-off corrupt countries for no explainable reason? Do we truly value life?

Michael
You said:"You opine about the government run aspects as if any question of fiscal responsibility is conservative Christians oppressing the poor."

Health care is not about fiscal responsibility. If that were our concern, we'd adopt the European single-payer system and cover everybody at half the price (and with better outcomes to boot). It's primarely about political doctrines. All this talk of personal responsibility is simply a smoke screen behind which one hides these doctrines.

Elaine,

"In the U.S., because of its original founders, an independent spirt was preeminent and it was a "do-it-yourself" country that depended on individual freedom with the unspoken motto of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and professed to rely on no one other than self."

While this is partly true they primarily feared excess government that they had personally witnessed. Thus the concept of "limited government" and tying politicians with chains to the constitution.

The concept was that "limited government" would best serve the individual rights and efforts of those in a pluralistic society against those experienced of the "powerful central state."

Ultimately our best intentions must be paid for. We must keep reality in focus and write laws that offer "equal protection" under law. As I have previously mentioned, big corporations, labor unions and others wrote special interest insurance coverage with the conduit of congressional desire with special tax privileges...not equal protection of law.

This was the nose of the camel in our present "out of control" system that NOW many corporations and unions who were the genius' of the inequity for their interest in the first place, now want to turn it all into a one payer government liability.

regards,
pat

Joselito,

I am sorry I missed you on my one visit from Florida to the Campus Hill church to see Des.

My "working" Filipina wife is amazed at hearing people say they are "oppressed" in the US. Having been raised in a poor farming community in the Philippines and having seen how the closely wedded church state influence of the Philippines fleshed out she is also amazed at some that want that here.

That experience is also that of many in the world who look at those who demand "certain provisions as a right" as if they were from a naive parallel universe.

Life has it's own set of challenges any where in the world.
Sound money, equal protection of the law, and opportunity to work and advance are the "material solutions."

regards,
pat

Joselito and Pat asked:

“My question for you: How far will you rely on the government to enforce your moral/religious values?”

I’ve already stated my position multiple times in previous posts. I'll try one more time. I’m not using government to enforce my moral/religious values. This constitutional republic is the context in which God has planted me; I’m simply exercising my rights and responsibilities as a citizen in Caesar’s kingdom, using voluntary persuasion to encourage others to communally adopt the values I, and I presume other Christians (and those of other faiths and denominations), hold: alleviating suffering, freeing captives, bringing justice to the oppressed. If you don’t agree these are Christian values, or feel that these values should not inform your values as an American citizen, then don’t vote for what I’m advocating; or come up with your own set of values (derived from Adam Smith, Karl Marx, CATO Institute or some other authority), and advocate for those; or if you choose not to participate in the political process, don’t.

But please understand, if you do vote or advocate for some other set of values and win, by your own reasoning, you too are using the government to enforce your values on me; forcing me to obey the laws of, or pay taxes to, a government whose policies and values with which I may not agree. But I accept that as part of the constitutional democratic process. If I were a Christian in a dictatorial form of government, I would try to advocate for my values in that context too. Please note, in either context, I am not using government to enforce my religious values; I am letting my Christianity inform my participation in whatever form of government I find myself.

Yes, there are cases where church and state are one and the same; where the head of state is also head of the church. A less severe version is where the two are formally separate but in close collusion, as is/was the case in some parts of the world at various times in history.

What’s the alternative? Moral neutrality in everything related to government? Don’t use any moral arguments to support political opinions? Don’t vote on anything pertaining to morality (because if one won, you would be using the government to enforce your morality)? Don’t take any political positions, don’t advocate for any values? Don’t talk to your children, neighbors, friends and colleagues about morality and politics? Don’t have any government? Imagine there’s no country (John Lennon)? As soon as there is any form of government, we all become participants. Choosing not to participate is making a choice by default.

O.K., there you have the two extremes: on one end, total reliance on government to enforce one’s personal morality (complete integration of church and state); on the other end of the spectrum, absolute moral neutrality on all things related to government (absolute separation of church and state). Practical reality is probably somewhere between these two extremes. I suspect Moses, Joseph, Daniel, Esther and Jesus lived somewhere within these two extremes; so do I. Jesus said: “Render unto Caesar….” He also said, “If a Roman soldier asked for your coat, give him your cloak also; if he forced you to carry his pack for a mile, go a second mile.”

Where does advocacy stop and coercion begin? How far do I go in advocating for my moral values in the context of a free society? Back to your original question: “How far will you rely on the government to enforce your moral/religious values?”

Guided by my moral/ethical compass, I would go where my personal theology and philosophy told me to go. If I were a Sola Scriptura fundamentalist, I may go where scripture told me to go. If I were Roman Catholic I may go where scripture and tradition told me to go. If I were a Wesleyan quadrilateralist, I may go where scripture, tradition, reason and experience told me to go. Being a progressive, Adventist, Protestant, Christian my personal theology and philosophy is always “under improvement”; I may go according to “Present Truth/the latest light” available to me at any given moment. Is this moral relativism? Some might make that argument. But I propose this “relativism” is just as solid, considered and “unshakable”, if not more so, than someone else’s firm foundation or amazing facts! : )

My question to you: What are YOUR guidelines for political involvement? Are they completely morally neutral? If not, haven’t you already mixed church and state? If you weighed in on this thread, you probably have already crossed over the neutral line. Advocacy is action. Not taking a position, is a position itself: that of conceding ones fate to the status quo or the stream of society’s currents. Advocating to keep God out of the healthcare discussion because one believes it violates ones individual, economic, property (taxes) or other rights, or because you believe God doesn’t belong in the discussion, is to prioritize that belief over someone else’s.

Neville,

I didn't get to play softball this morning in rainy central Florida so I saw your post.

Thanks for your thoughts.

You state, "Please note, in either context, I am not using government to enforce my religious values; I am letting my Christianity inform my participation in whatever form of government I find myself."

That is fine. It has been suggested by some however that one "must" vote for a "government one payer" if one is "properly informed."

I personally see a picture of justice and mercy that considers the rights and choices of "the one and many" presented in scripture.

Once you go down the road of the "single government payer" you have removed many legitimate choices of individuals for medical coverage. (choices certainly not considered immoral in scripture). Government is Law. It uses force for compliance. It is not a "charitable" orginization as it must "take to give."

If it were the case that the less fortunate citizens in the US did not have programs, charity and access to receive care while the rest of society flourished then you would have a "moral problem." I do not see that as the case for US citizens.

I agree there is a problem in "health care delivery" and there should be more equitable corrections in the tax code, delivery, means, and access to care.(I have maintained this by the way for 25 yrs.) The solution, I suggest, does NOT require by using "Christian Morals" the "means" be "a one payer Gov. system" as the solution.

You scoff at RBF/JBF and this is a good illustration of it's value. I am not judged moral or immoral by your understanding of "law,mercy,and justice."

In this particular issue I can be assured that I am reckoned righteous in the merits of Christ...despite what you and many other 'religionist' may suppose are "improper insights and works."...get it?

Legitimate "purchases" and charitable choices from the fruit of ones labor is considered moral and a part of "protected" justice.

regards,
pat

Neville,

I do not want to change the thought and content of this strand, so a yes or no answer is adequate.

"You state, "Please note, in either context, I am not using government to enforce my religious values; I am letting my Christianity inform my participation in whatever form of government I find myself."

With this view you would consider it legitimate for Christians, so inclined by their informed position, to participate in defining the meaning of marriage...would you not?

regards,
pat

>>> "a one payer Gov. system" as the solution

This, by the way, is not being suggested BY ANYONE.
All proposals allow a person to

(a) have a minimum standard of care paid for by the tax payer, and

(b) get further care by paying for it themselves, or by being in some kind of insurance or other collaborative scheme

Curiously, this is EXACTLY what we have today. The differences are not the structure, but exactly what should be covered under (a) and how.

Today (a) is paid for by hospitals being required to help those who can't pay, and distributing the costs across their other clients who can pay.

The proposal for (a) is to have the government stop this hiding of costs, and negotiate to keep those costs down.

What a horrible thing for the government to do!

/Bevin

Neville,
Regardless of labels, don't we all believe in promoting the general welfare? In the OT, it seems that the Sabbath, the Seventh Year, the Year of Jubilee, and the tithe were some of the means used to redistribute wealth and to care for the needy. In the NT, a common fund for the poor was received in the early Church. Perhaps you're right, that a single third-party payer such as the government, should take over health finance, similar to its supervision of our security. That said, I personally find no specific instruction in Scriptures what reform or law should be enforced today by the modern state. However, while refraining from passing judgment on whether it is good or bad, based on what I've seen of developments abroad, one logical and practical result of a government taking over health care finance is the loss of church-run institutions. Let's remember that while the church may have a corner on salvation, the state has a monopoly on violence and means of coercion by war or police power.

Bevin,

"The proposal for (a) is to have the government stop this hiding of costs, and negotiate to keep those costs down."

It has been an "unjust" requirement (no compensation) placed on "private hospitals" from the beginning by government legislation. This is an example of "facist economics...gov't rules and regulation for "financial" control of private entities.)

I was raised in Atlanta,Ga. Grady Hospital was there to provide care for the indigent.

My question is, why not have an assortment of these through the country for the indigent?

For those seeking health insurance let them purchase it themselves (rather than Co.provided) and offer "equal tax pay role tax deductions for all" that do. Private pools could be formed with the stipulation that pre-existing conditions could not be refused. Fixed rates could be offered considering various deductions.

The states or Fed.could have a "catastrophic" coverage over a given amount.

I suggest fees would go down and individual responsibility for health care choices and "health" would improve...as well as DNR's.

Just "Macro" thoughts.

Regards,
pat

"one logical and practical result of a government taking over health care finance is the loss of church-run institutions."

Do you seriously believe that the government does not have a very heavy hand in SDA church-run institutions? The SDA hospitals have hundreds of guidelines by which they are allowed to operate; plus receiving millions of dollars from the government from both Medicare and Medicaid patients, that must adhere to all the government mandates.

No hospital today can operate without "government interference." No only in patient care, but in hiring and firing of employees they are subject to fair labor practices, non-discrimination, and more. To naively believe that the SDA hospitals are not dictated by the government is fallacious.

In addition, while SDA hospitals operate as "non-profits" have you checked the "Rodney Vega" link where you can see the exorbitant salaries by SDA hospital CEOs.

www.wherethemoneygoes.com

To see the list of CEOs with salaries.

For those of you who didn't find Elaine's story--a truely repugnant story of callousness and greed that makes the hair stand on your head--click on this link:

http://www.wherethemoneygoes.com/newSearch.php?SearchString=rodney+vega

Aage and Elaine,

I believe the term "not for profit" is a misnomer. All establishments offering services must balance their books and "have a profit over the cost of the actual materials and plant" to stay in business and pay personnel.

It should be stated that the difference is mainly in weather it is a public or private co. and weather "outside" investors must be paid for the use of their capital.

I do not question the salaries necessarily if they are truly competitive...in other words operating under the same laws as "for profit" systems. If they are not for profit they should have a proportional discounted salary it seems to their "comparable" compatriots who have to deal with all those "laws for profit."

I do not know the specifics of this case but FH did have a fund for indigent patients. A question however if this was an employed SDA pastors son wht did their medical plan not cover it?

An Aside, When I was a "resident" Chaplain at Fla. Hospital they had fewer "full time paid positions" Chaplains per patient than did the Orlando Regional Health Center System. Cost seemed to be the concern.

regards,
pat

>>> It has been an "unjust" requirement (no compensation) placed on "private hospitals" from the beginning by government legislation.

A private hospital is not required to do this. Only hospitals that wish to bill Medicaid (or have an ED?). It is their choice to get involved.

But I agree - doing it via this back door rather than explicitly funding it was a mistake. Unfunded mandates are common in the USA, and I think rare elsewhere - a commentary on the USA's political structure.

>>> Private pools could be formed with the stipulation that pre-existing conditions could not be refused.

Why put this requirement on them?

>>> The states or Fed.could have a "catastrophic" coverage over a given amount.

This is the wrong answer, because it encourages the poor to only seek medical treatment after their minor ailment, fixed for a few dollars, has become a major problem that will cost a much amount.

If everybody has the same minimal safety net - regardless of income, then the right behavior results.

Above that you should have to pay for it yourself - possibly through some private cooperative scheme - and it certainly should not be tax deductable, as it is just another source of income and preference for spending.

Bevin,

"A private hospital is not required to do this. Only hospitals that wish to bill Medicaid (or have an ED?). It is their choice to get involved."

And...if they don't what is their legal culpability? Oh...forgot about that. :~(

Agree the safety net "catastrophic" should be the same for all.

States make conditions for the issuance of all types of insurance. I believe automatic cancellation for a house or auto claim should be illegal and in a sense "pre-existing conditions" fall into that paradigm.

The reason a payrole tax deduction up to a specific amount is because the system has been skewed by " special interest tax right offs" in leau of salary increases to pay for care. There must be at least a transitional equalizer for all to compensate for the "income loss." At least it would be equal for all citizens.

regards,
pat

In the multiple pages of the "Where the Money Goes" the salaries to the CEOs of the SDA hospital satellites under Florida, the highest paid CEOs were EACH paid more than the combined salaries of Mayo's and John Hopkins' CEOs. If that is "competitive" then you would be interested in buying the Golden Gate Bridge?

"Not for profit" means that what remains after ALL the salaries and possible expenses are covered. So the salaries are paid before the calculations are made. Anything remaining is usually plowed back into updating or adding new facilities--thus showing no profits. Most "non-profits" certainly cannot show profits on their books.

Just as the G.C. is "non-profit" and if there is "extra funds" there are numerous places it can be used. Understanding the definition of non-profit institutions is not exactly like it sounds.

In 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that the “combined net income of the 50 largest nonprofit hospitals jumped nearly eight-fold to $4.27 billion between 2001 and 2006.”

The article also noted that nonprofits, were “faring even better than their for-profit counterparts: 77% of the 2,033 U.S. nonprofit hospitals are in the black, while just 61% of for-profit hospitals are profitable, according to the AHD [American Hospital Directory] data.”

Elaine,

You state, "Not for profit" means that what remains after ALL the salaries and possible expenses are covered. So the salaries are paid before the calculations are made. Anything remaining is usually plowed back into updating or adding new facilities--thus showing no profits. Most "non-profits" certainly cannot show profits on their books."

Your observations are true and valid, and This is part of "the accounting skewing" that should be noted.

I suggest it should be seen as I presented it above or we could also say that all are "not for profit" by simply saying salaries and investors are paid back their capital expense and then "there is no profit"...the remaing is just put back into updating or adding to the facility.

Make sense of the potential abuse?

regards,
pat

>>> And...if they don't what is their legal culpability?

The EMTALA (http://www.emtala.com/) regulations '...applies only to "participating hospitals"'

From this website, it sounds like only VA's, Shriners, and very few others aren't participating.

>>> "pre-existing conditions"

There is a big problem with this. People will wait UNTIL they have an expensive condition, and then sign up! ie: in a short time the insurance is ONLY covering people who need expensive treatment. Since the income must meet all the expenses plus overhead, the premiums will be exorbatant. So people won't people able to afford them - so they will not sign up, and end up back on the safety net.

/Bevin

The great benefit of universal healthcare is that the risk is spread: young, healthy people, middle-aged, and older are covered. Just like life insurance, people that are young take out affordable coverage and as they are older and have family, they can "up" the premium and get the extra coverage needed. This method for health insurance also asssures them that when they are older and have need for more health benefits, they will be covered for whatever treatments needed.
We forget that young males, particularly, have a much higher accident rate: auto or motorcycle, than older adults.

By excluding preexisting conditions, the private insurers have long "cherry-picked" their least costly patients. It is not unusual for simple, medically treated hypertension to be a "preexiting condition." Most people past 60 now have some minor hypertension as they gradually lower the threshold to 120 systolic.

Many years ago, my late husband, having previously had quadruple bypass, was covered by Medicare, but when an insurance salesman called and presented a private "gap" plan, once he asked, and I told him my husband's previous surgery, he closed his sales pitch and immediately left. Medicare has no conditions, as at age 65, few people are as healthy as a 20-year old: I dare say none are.

The numerous European countries and others who offer universal coverage have no more rationing or problems than we now have, and everyone has access to the same care. It is all based on our values: we either don't value healthcare for everyone--only those who can afford it--or we are unwilling to pay for it; which raises the question if we had to approve of each and every government program for which our taxes are used, how many would consent?

Yes, but it is NOT insurance.

Insurance is risk-spreading. If you already have the condition, it is not a risk.

It is forming a coalition for negotiating purposes (jsut like joining Sam's Club), it is having specialists be efficient in the processing of the claim, but it is not insurance.

I don't believe in "healthcare for everyone", I believe in a limited well-defined safety net for everyone. Quotas. Rationing. Letting people who could live die.

"Healthcare for everyone" without limits is exactly what the doctors and the hospitals and the drug companies and the equipment suppliers want to hear - and what they hear is "we can charge whatever we like and these suckers will pay for it".

I do not believe in spending $2M on keeping a premature baby alive - you can save a lot of other lives for $2M.

/Bevin

Healthcare for everyone should not mean that all possible effort will be used, no matter the expense, for a terminal and aged patient. Neither should such money be spent on some neonates that will never have a useful or functioning future. However, if it is your baby, you might feel differently as seldom can anyone be certain of the outcome. Many neonates have a fulfilling life without any problems after the first year while others may not. No one can predict which.

No doctor continues to treat terminal patients with expensive procedures unless the family demands it, and if "someone" is paying, the physician cannot legally refuse treatment; which is why the discussions on last few days of life should be discussed before that time. When the family say they want everything possible done, the physician cannot refuse, even when he tries to convince the family of its uselessness. Same as with the neonate.

There will, of necessity, be some limitations imposed on such care, but it will not, nor cannot be universally accepted. The problem is that most of the public wants to deny death and do everything possible to prevent it, knowing that no one gets out of this earth alive--death is as inevitable as the sun rising and setting.

It is ironic that the Christian who is convinced that there is an afterlife, eternal, and joyful, should be so reluctant to accept death. Why is that? I will likely not be living five years from now, perhaps a few more if I'm extremely lucky. I have no fear of death, and when it comes, I will likely be ready to go to sleep, just as sleep that is welcomed after a long, dreary, tiring day.

What is so immoral about the Florida Hospital story is that it pretends to approach health care from a Christian--hence presumably compassionate--angle. You would like to believe that Christian churches were into running hospitals as an extension of its general compassionate mission. You would like to believe that a putative Christian hospital system, instead of trying to maximize profits would try to maximize their outreach and hence the good they could do.

Letting CEOs siphon off millions of dollars beyond what would be a reasonable pay to cater to inflated egos and crass greed is what we've come to expect from the "masters of the universe" of Wall Street, not from people who pretend to be Christians.

Rodney Vega, the little boy at the center of this story, illustrates painfully well what is so horribly wrong with US health care. The fact that a non-SDA hospital eventually chose to help reflects of course badly upon the greedy Adventist executives who put profit above compassion, but ultimately that is of little significance. (Nobody ever believed, did they, that the hospital was a WWJD project?)

What is truly appalling is that any 10-years should be condemned to death for lack of health insurance. A system that can institutionalize such callousness is Darwinian through and through.

Pat,

You say: “You scoff at RBF/JBF and this is a good illustration of it's value. I am not judged moral or immoral by your understanding of "law,mercy,and justice."

To the contrary, I do not scoff at RBF/JBF! It is the very foundation upon which I build my case for social responsibility and action: It is my “right standing” before God (although undeserved) that animates my “right doing” toward others (although sometimes undeserving). “Freely ye have received, freely give.”

Neither do I judge you moral or immoral! I simply try to persuade you to view the issue (health care) through scriptural filters (rather than Adam Smith, Marx or CATO). If you don’t buy my scriptural arguments, no sweat off my back. I respect your conscience and decisions.

You ask:
“With this view you would consider it legitimate for Christians, so inclined by their informed position, to participate in defining the meaning of marriage...would you not?”

Yes, I would consider it legitimate for Christians, so inclined by their informed position, to participate in defining the meaning of marriage if doing so serves a greater good, alleviates suffering, expands the application of freedom, or corrects an existing societal injustice. No, if doing so unjustly denies a civil right to those excluded by the legislated definition. At least that is where “Present Truth” leads me at the moment. I am always open to new light.

Great thought-provoking conversation! Have a happy Thanksgiving!

>>> What is truly appalling is that any 10-years should be condemned to death for lack of health insurance. A system that can institutionalize such callousness is Darwinian through and through.

We need to be realistic about this. Every dollar which tax payers put into treating one patient COULD have been spent doing something else

> providing adult education classes
> providing better law enforcement
> providing better preventive care
> providing better neonatal and antenatal care

It is callous to kill 20 people indirectly because you waste the money on one visible case

But often this is the foolishness pushed by Christians and Aid groups - for example the "Save the Children" nonsense. Save the adults, fix their economies and societies, and then the child mortality rate can be safely lowered

/Bevin

Neville,

And…Happy Thanksgiving to you and a "parting" thought concerning Thanksgiving from the 1st U.S. President:

Proclamation of National Day of Thanksgiving

“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October
in the year of our Lord 1789". – George Washington

regards,
pat

Bevin
The money to treat the young boy with brain cancer was there and it was not even tax money. And the dollars saved in denying him potentially life-saving surgery did not go into providing greater service for the community: it went to health executives who apparently need to be bribed with Wall Street wages to even consider doing their job.

According to St. Gordon of Gekko "Greed is good." I beg to differ. Greed kills.

Don't point specific fingers at those particular individuals.

If those hospitals and people decided to give money to a cause, it is highly probably this boy would not have been the most beneficial place to use the money.

Almost everyone who reads this forum is earning so much money and had so much personal wealth that they could, if they so choose, save the lives of several hundred African children.However those children would then be an extra burden on an already overburdened socio-economic system, and their lives would cause others to loose resources and die.

They could also give the money to improve the socio-economic conditions in those countries. In the long run this would probably keep a billion or two more people alive on that continent.

Is the goal really to see how many billions of people we can get to age 70?

Surely not.

/Bevin

Weren't we talking about the U.S. healthcare system, rather than the entire world's?

With the age of retirement and Social Security benefits increasing each year, it is reflective of the longer life expectancy today than when it was first created. Many productive citizens are in their 70s and 80s. Should they be denied medical care at some magical cutoff date? Even SDAs live longer than comparison population, and should we be penalized because we have benefited from healthier lifestyles?

Who decides when someone, simply based on age is no longer qualified for health benefits? Why was there such a ruckus about the erroneously called "death panels" when it would only pay healthcare providers time (after all, time=money) to discuss end-of-life care for seniors? It could save enormous sums if each person had a durable poewer of attorney for healthcare when she is no longer able to make such decisions. Currently, in the absence of such provisos, these patients must be treated maximally as any patient, not matter their age. It is potential patients, not healthcare providers that should be taking action and not condemning the congressmen who saw the need.

>>> Who decides when someone, simply based on age is no longer qualified for health benefits?

The problem of defining the treatments that the govt will pay for is exactly what we have politicians for.

It is clear that treatments should be included or excluded based both on their cost and the benefit to the individual.

It is not clear exactly where the line should be drawn.

/Bevin

Aage,
I was intrigued by your reference to Rodney Vega, so I googled an account of the controversy here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR200508...
It appears that his dad was in this country, together with the entire family, on the strength of a religious visa/work permit. This fact, of course, doesn't lessen the importance of what lessons we may glean in regard to the need to reform our own Adventist health care system.

In contrast, off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few uninsured brain and heart surgery patients who were here as visitors from my own country and who had been treated free of charge in our Loma Linda Medical Center. I'm sure American tax payers footed the bill in every single charity case. In addition, free lodging for the duration of their treatment and recovery as outpatients had to be provided some place nearby.

From that article...

>>> Rodney Vega's brain tumor was discovered by chance after a car accident in Venezuela. After two operations there, the family moved to Florida in search of more sophisticated treatment. The family paid Florida Hospital $800 for a brain scan in 2002, which was later refunded. The two sides vehemently disagree over Montilla Vega's assertions that the hospital said surgery would cost them $20,000.

Now THAT is a pre-existing condition. The idea that you can come to the USA and expect to get free care is absurd - this is why travellers are supposed to buy travel health insurance.

>>> Morrison agreed that hospital pricing has become a convoluted, illogical system of shifting costs from one payer to another. But he and other executives contend that the answer is not to squeeze hospitals, but to devise a national solution for treating the uninsured

As we said above

/Bevin

Bevin,

I was busy the other day so I would like to make a comment about emergency rooms.

If a hospital (not saying they should) choose not to receive medicare/caide monies and choose to have an emergency room for paying patients only, why is it just to make them culpable for lawsuits for not providing care to the indigent...non payers.

I admit, I see healthcare as a priviledge not a "right." If a person is not paying, I see it as "mercy, and grace" if someone chooses to "pay for them in compassion." I believe compassion IS called for by Christians and non Christians alike for indigents BUT it does not have to take the form of a "single" government payer "for all."

I know you contend none are asking for that. I suggest that is definately the desire/goal of many ultimately in the "delivery" of health care legislation. I suggest budgeting 500b cuts in Medicare fees is just part of that creeping process of "needing" a "single payer" by "creating crisis" and conundrums requiring new solutions.

I appreciated the HK system of "to an extent rationed coverage" after the "basics" for all. In other words there was a budgeted amount for Health Care not "open ended" covering all procedures. If a person by "relative choices" chose to save for straight "private care"/or Insurance coverage, one could while always having the public option availiable.

There was a flat 15% income tax for all.

Regards,
pat

Joselito,

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.

You said:
“…I personally find no specific instruction in Scriptures what reform or law should be enforced today by the modern state.”

Addressing the first part your comment, I don’t look to scripture for specific instructions on many things. Many are completely irrelevant today (elaborate procedures for ceremonial cleansing, sacrifices, dimensions and construction materials/techniques for the tabernacle, numerical accounting of various tribes, families of the Israelites, etc.); but is often silent on issues of specific interest today. I don’t, for example, treat scripture as an owner’s manual for my car. I can look forever through the 66 books and will never find the recommended tire inflation pressures, recommended oil viscosity or the manufacturer and model number for a burned-out turn signal lamp. For these I consider GM, Dodge or BMW more authoritative than scripture.

As, what I believe is, an inspired book and moral guide, there are, however, many broad, over-arching themes that seem obvious to even the casual student of scripture: justice, mercy, hospitality toward others, including aliens, enemies and the undeserving.

Addressing the last part of your comment, as my previous exchange with Pat more fully explains, I don’t look to the modern state to enforce scriptural instructions. That would violate “separation of church and state” principles.

You also said:
“Let's remember that while the church may have a corner on salvation, the state has a monopoly on violence and means of coercion by war or police power.”

Hence my advocacy for my government to shift spending priorities in the direction of relieving the suffering of its own citizens over (what I feel are) specious war adventures half-way around the world to “protect our national interests” and “secure our borders”. But that’s a different thread altogether.

In an earlier post, you said:
“Strangely enough, although I've been coming almost every week to Hollywood for an entire year, since November of last year, I can count only two persons who have been actively involved in any kind of leadership role in that professedly progressive, socially-engaged religious community with whom I've had the extraordinary opportunity of face to face conversation.”

Although I had run into you occasionally in the foyer, parking lot and fellowship hall of the church, I hadn’t realized you had been coming for a year. You had told me that you occasionally worship with the Thai group. Perhaps you had been coming before we introduced each other at the potluck.

Regarding not having had the opportunity to have had conversation with those actively involved in active leadership, I understand some of your frustration. As a (generously) middle-aged member of a rather young (and increasingly so) congregation, I sometime feel left out of the conversation myself. Even as someone involved in leadership, it’s easy to be left out of the loop. I skipped the My Space phase, but grudgingly got on Facebook to stay in touch with the younger members of the congregation. At this point, I have absolutely no use for Twitter, although church members look at me like I’m from Mars when I say that. Who knows, progressive revelation might lead me to Twitter (or is “Twit” the verb form?) yet!

I take the new members (and the way they Twit…, I mean converse) as a positive development though, as the church is a growing (numerically, but much more so spiritually). As our involvement in social responsibility and justice advances, younger peeps (see, I’m getting there!) seem to be coming out of the woodwork, many multi-generation Adventists who had previously dropped out of church altogether (usually after college/university) and couldn’t find a community of faith they could relate to. They also bring their friends and colleagues.

There are, however, many opportunities to converse face-to-face: before and after the church service is an obvious one (as is the case with most churches), if one is so inclined. In addition, there are many opportunities for conversation at the various social justice (and just plain social) activities, of which the church has many. Often the two are indistinguishable. A couple examples:

The current leader of our social justice ministry came specifically because of our social justice reputation. He visited just over a year ago and has since become the social justice leader (freeing the previous one to become a board member of our interfaith community organization partner). Since then, he has introduced two social justice initiatives/activities that have “conversation” as a key ingredient. One was the “One Mile Mission”, drawing a 1-mile radius around the church and proposing we work towards the broad goal of every single person within the circle having “A meal to eat, a place to sleep, and chance to dream”. To accomplish this, we had to get to know our neighborhood, and more importantly, know the people. “Neighborhood Walks” that covered the every street and sidewalk within the 1-mile radius were initiated. Church members, neighbors and owners of local business establishments were invited to these walks; having conversations between these parties was the goal. Some local businesses were so enthused by this concept, they “sponsor” the walks by hosting and providing refreshments for participants after the walk. We also notice, from our local City Councilmember’s (who has a field office within our 1-mile radius) web site, he has started some “neighborhood walks”! : )

Noticing many of our church attendees are new and did not quite get the reason for our social justice work, and how conversations are an integral part of it, our Social Justice leader started a “100 Conversations” initiative among our members. Just two weeks ago, inspired by the idea, but fearing their peers (confirmed by actual reactions) would be suspicious, feel “hit upon”, “evangelized” and put off by a formal, structured “program”, another young couple conceived and put together an evening of conversation, similar to a speed-dating event, except these were not speed conversation. The chapel was converted into a café-like atmosphere. The 50 people who showed up drew names from a hat and, for the first round, had to have a conversation with one person, for about 20-30 minutes. “Give a 5-minute summary of your life” was the conversation starter. New pairs were drawn from the hat for the second 30-minute round using the starting question, "Relate a turning point in your life”. It was a great evening of refreshments, conversation including young adults, older members (80+ years), creative professionals, university students and functionally homeless. With these 2 rounds of conversation, we probably met the 100 conversations goal in one evening; but with the energy generated, I suspect the conversations are only beginning.

If you have been at Hollywood for the last few months, it would have been almost impossible to have missed the bulletin, in-church, word-of-mouth, Facebook, and Twitter announcements for these activities. We’re just a small church, with very limited resources, and these are relatively small activities, sometimes with less than grandiose numbers participating; but the conversations are priceless. I’m sorry you have, so far, missed these events.

This was not a top-down strategic plan from the leadership of the church but a ground-up, organic initiative from a couple relatively new members. This is quite typical for our congregation. These “wiz kids” (as I call them) are the “active leaders” of my church, though some may not even be officially members. We have noticed the last couple of baptisms and membership transfers seemed redundant and superfluous since they had already fully bought into what the community was about, and in fact were already leading!

Though serving in the official leadership structure, I, by their standards, am “semi-retired”. I tell my fellow church leaders that, since as a youth I always complained about the church hierarchy saying “No” to all my creative ideas, it is now my job to say “Yes”. After all, the future of the church is with those who will carry on after us. And, as I told my cousin, saying our “goodbyes” after our extended-family Thanksgiving dinner yesterday, “All the hair coloring in the world doesn’t make us any younger!”

I hesitated to post this since I thought it may be considered “straying from the subject of the main thread”. But I think this responds directly to the larger question of, “What does God (and the church, His people) have to do with “social justice”? How are the Kingdom of Caesar and the Kingdom of God related? Many Adventists seem to focus on when the two are at odds. Few appreciate when the two are congruent; when the kingdom of God breaks through into that of Caesar.

Neville,
Yes, I had a good Thanksgiving, first with a morning church service followed by a brunch fellowship in LA and second an early dinner at home with my traditional extended family. It means each member of our household was free to invite a couple of their own friends and strangers. Thank you!

Now, I agree that Scriptures are silent on matters you mentioned. However, the same Bible often speaks eloquently regarding our freedom to fulfill our duty to both civil government (state) and to organized religion (what we call church/God). See Romans 13:1 and 1 Samuel 8:10-20.

You wrote: "How are the Kingdom of Caesar and the Kingdom of God related? Many Adventists seem to focus on when the two are at odds. Few appreciate when the two are congruent; when the kingdom of God breaks through into that of Caesar."

I submit that the Kingdom of God includes both secular and sacred realms. The Kingdom of God includes everything. All.

"The idea of the two kingdoms originally comes from St Augustine, one of the great theologians of the western church... He said that there are two cities or two kingdoms: the kingdom of God (the heavenly city) and the kingdom of Satan (the earthly city)...

"Luther initially accepted this dualism but later rejected the idea that the world is to be identified with the kingdom of Satan...

"The important thing to note is that God has two hands and that he is the ruler of both realms… The same God stands behind both the secular and spiritual government and is present in them."

- THE TWO 'KINGDOMS' by the Lutheran Church of Australia:
Commission on Social and Bioethical Questions (2001), pp 4-6.
http://www.lca.org.au/resources/csbq/twokingdoms.pdf

That said, this may surprise you, as well as others reading my comments, but I would include organized religion (the General Conference) under the secular realm insofar as it deals with law or church order, such as in connection with the need to reform the American health care system, including Adventist health care. As others have argued, our own Adventist health care system (church/God) is not, and should not be, immune from state-sponsored remedial measures. I believe we should consider this as our civic and religious duty.

About my weekly visits to Hollywood since November of last year, I've been regular with our Thai brothers and sisters who meet in the chapel. My encounters with worshippers in the main sanctuary have occurred mostly prior to and following the services there. From what I've seen, there's hardly a connection, if any, between the two groups that occupy adjacent spaces in the same building. Besides you, the only other person in a semi-retired leadership position in Hollywood with whom I got acquainted later introduced me to a clinical psychologist friend of his during one of their Tuesday dinners together. Both men are WW2 vets.

Again, I wish we would frame the debate about health care reform in terms of "interests" rather than either "priviledges" or "rights."

It is certainly in each individual's interest to be guaranteed basic health care. But this is also in the interest of society as a whole.

It is in everyone's interest not to have people who are ill up and about, sometimes spreading their diseases. It is in everyone's interest not to have such high costs and low results as we have in the United States today when compared to other nations. It is in everyone's interest not to require our manufacturers cover so much of our health care costs, making them less competetive than manufacturers in nations where these costs are spread out over the population as a whole.

More generally, it is in everyone's interest to have a large middle class with relatively fewer very rich and very poor people because over time such arrangements are more stable. The current trends by which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer can continue only so long before we have a bloody revolution on our hands, as has happened so often in other settings.

Yes, of course, we will have to have reasonable and responsible forms of rationing which I believe will be more in everybody's interest than the unreasonable and irresponsible forms of rationing we now have in the United States.

Everybody knows that we are spending huge amounts of money in the last couple weeks of termninally ill patients when the most rational and responsible thing would be to keep them comfortable until they die.

But some politicians have frightened people for their own selfish reasons about this. It is amazing, really.

For your consideration, the Mayo Clinic model, IMO, seems the most reasonable approach to health care reform. Unfortunately, for various reasons, Adventist hospitals in the U.S.A., as well as many mission hospitals, have deviated from the previous pattern that is still promoted at Mayo Clinic, such that:

"Mayo’s model of integrated care is one of multidisciplinary practice with salary-based compensation that fosters team-oriented patient care and peer accountability, a supportive infrastructure allowing physicians and other caregivers to excel at clinical work, and a physician-led governance structure promoting a patient-centered culture."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/N...

With Roy Branson in Loma Linda, I'm hopeful he will provide the needed catalyst for the establishment of a Center for Public Policy there. Or, do we already have one similar to Mayo Clinic's Health Policy Center?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/pdfs/viewpoint4.pdf

Dave,

You say, "Again, I wish we would frame the debate about health care reform in terms of "interests" rather than either "priviledges" or "rights."

Dave, I'm not personally willing to do this because it "changes the entire conversation."

You see, I am presently by paying taxes being compassionate to those who are on medicaide or receive State or Fed public health assistance or services.

It is not a "right" to receive non paid for health care but one of the benefits of being in a compasionate prosperous society.

"Rights" remove "gratitude" from the equation and the proper "reward"/feeling by taxpayers that they have been compassionate to their neighbor.

"Interest" may at times be proper but then it is often "spun" to make any bad outcome the fault of those who did not "provide adequate self interest." This faulty logic is the same that leads to the twisted logic that it was the US's fault that Muslim extremist flew planes into the WTC as we failed to perform the "self interest actions" i.e foreign aide or recognition of Taliban social concepts that would... prevent it.

The "provider" thus becomes slave to the perceived "receiver's rights/societies self interest needs."

regards,
pat

>>> You see, I am presently by paying taxes being compassionate to those who are on medicaide or receive State or Fed public health assistance or services.

Bluntly put, no you are not.

You are part of a system that is defining 'owning property'.

The current definition denies these people the ability to, for instance, walk onto "my" land and plant a garden.

In exchange for denying them this ability the system forces me to pay them money.

This is not compassion. It is an coerced trade.

/Bevin

Dave,

Since you propose that we eschew using "rights" rather than privileges or interests, would you explain which of the privileges and interests that are in the best interest of all U.S. citizens.

Does the U.S. owe its citizens the "right" of protection against fire, burglary, taking of property, defending individual's freedom? Were the constitutional amendments added for the rights or privileges of its citizens? Are there distinct differences that you would explain, as you understand them, as it seems to be very important to you that they be differentiated.

Most European nations have decided that universal healthcare is a right that it bestows on all its citizens. The U.S. is the only first world nation that is still arguing that universal healthcare is a "privilege" that is only extended to certain groups of people: those on Medicaid who are unable to pay; senior citizens past 65; veterans of war; and federal employees including congressmen who have unusually fine healthcare at minimal cost. These congressmen are almost totally immune to identifying with the tremendous burden of one illness away from bankruptcy for the average U.S. citizen. Yet, they are the ones who will be deciding the future healthcare for all their constituents.

Do Americans have a "right" to public education, K-12, or is it a privilege that may be revoked at any time? Do Americans have a "right" to protection from harmful and poisonous substances in their food and water? Or, would you identify that as a privilege?

Bevin,

Governments use "coercion" in collecting taxes. That is a "taken/given."

But when government pays for "any service" for others within that "coercive" paradigm, I suggest that even if I "donated unwillingly", I assisted them/indigent in receiving a service they would not have otherwise had due to their inability to pay...OK? Thus gratitude is appropriate. :~)

regards,
pat

Medicare currently pays for E.D. that terrible, debilitating condition not uncommon in males of a certain age.

However, while government funding pays for E.D., under the bill in Congress, it will not cover either birth control for women nor abortions.

Is there not a paradox here? Couldn't the first condition also lead to the second? Or is it because the majority in Congress are still of the male gender and fully (pun intended) realized the absolute necessity of E.D. medication, but see no relevance for women to be protected from the potential effects of treated E.D.?

Elaine,
"It will not cover either birth control for women nor abortions."

Did you overlook the possible "religious" factor other than the "Male Chauvinist Pig" factor? ;~)

regards,
Happy and "Not Sleepless in Seattle"

Elaine wrote: "... while government funding pays for E.D., under the bill in Congress, it will not cover either birth control for women nor abortions."

You cite a serious flaw in a state-controlled system, like Medicare, such as: loss of individual freedom to choose what you believe is in the interest of society in general.

Thus, Mayo Clinic's Health Policy Center submits:

Within the context of a reformed insurance system, we recommend that the government create a simple coordinating mechanism for individuals to select a basic private insurance plan from several options … We do not support the creation of another government-run, government price-controlled, Medicare-like insurance plan. Medicare pays for volume, not value, causes significant costshifts to the private sector and is financially unsustainable.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthpolicycenter/pdfs/viewpoint4.pdf

Joselito,

"Medicare pays for volume, not value, causes significant costshifts to the private sector and is financially unsustainable."

Good. Offices and hospitals could not continue on that reimbursement schedule alone. It is because of "costshifts" that the program presently works. Of course... 500 billion more budgeted money is to be removed in order to make the phoney baloney "budgeting projection" work in the present plans for overhaul and a "new system."

That will never actually happen or there will simply be another "planned crisis" in the making.

regards,
pat

I think you have some great discussion on this site. I've been bothered by the level of discussion on these topics in many different websites. I still feel that Health insurance for individuals should be a priority for all of us. Thanks for the site and the discussion. I think that what has happened in the last couple of months has been a good start in what I'm sure will be a very long road.