As of this March 21,2010 sadly Democracy is chipped away as we have known it.many of those in government were graduates from very liberal colleges sitting under socialist professors who teach nothing good about America. The system we have enjoyed over 200 years is no good. That there is no hope in the free interprise system. Government must be involved in every area of Americans' lives. Today the chipping is being done through Health Care Bill. Quoting a statement by the current Speaker of the House "we have many other Bills to follow this one.". God help the United States. It is time for prayer followed by action through the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is a call for the Church of Jesus Christ (His Bride) not to be caught slumbering. Every seat in the House and Senate is up for election this November 2nd , 2010. We as members of His Church must get out there, pray for candidates, and go meet them and ask in the Name of Jesus Christ where they stand on His principles. When we find one who does then work for him/her and cover them and their families. Through these efforts we will have a good chance of taking back and placing the foundations our Founders so heartily believed in: Faith, Hope, Charity and Trust. Love You all in Jesus Name.
Health Care Bill To Socialism
- Thread starter pastorlesofm
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You're right Pastor, as the Body of Christ we are commanded to pray.
Could this all be part on God's end time plan?
Moses
Could this all be part on God's end time plan?
Moses
revdw76
New Member
well friends, as of 10pm edt. this vote passed with 3 extra votes to spare. noww a little more so called discussion, a final vote then the presidents signature.
God, please help us all.
God, please help us all.
Well personally im sickened with the whole thing, gods people will rise up and take a stand against this.
Tavita
New Member
As an Australian I get a little confused as to why Americans get so upset with having social medicine. We have it here, so does England and other countries... but we don't have a socialist government.
What is it about your new health care bill that worries you the most?
What is it about your new health care bill that worries you the most?
Actually Great Britain/England is regarded as a Socialist country in just about all of the circles I'm aware of including by liberal friends. Even Wikipedia makes that distinction about the Labour Party, as they are affiliated with Socialist International. You folks are on the way; I think you took a step back from the ledge with the lesser evil bailout syndrome, but I'd regard Australia as a blooming socialist nation. You folks share a spirit like America in that you go your own way a bit more, but it's still coming just like it is here.
Unfortunately just about all aspects of it. It's no secret that this is a linchpin step to absolute universal healthcare. Costs are another obvious concern. We've been promised this is "deficit neutral" but it's only offset by cuts which historically never live up to their expectations. Secondly, the CBO is frequently incorrect and I think that's illustrated quite well by their recent snafus in calculating the budget for this, so no I don't trust the estimate. Thirdly, we've just raised a whole lot of taxes to pay for this. I currently pay $110/month for healthcare. I guarantee you I'll pay more than that before this over simply because of taxes; this includes taxes on things that folks might need like diabetes monitors, etc. On top of that, It's already widely known that we're paying 14 years of taxes to setup just 10 years of healthcare (hence the delay until 2014 to start). Supporters maintain that this is basically for "startup costs" but once again this has played out before and it always equates to budget deficits.
Perhaps most importantly, though, is that the government can now fine me 2% of income or $695 if I don't carry insurance. We are simply not born with a right to healthcare. The thing about it is that these government guaranteed rights continue to expand until the population is forced to have them. If someone doesn't want to carry insurance, then that should be their right as well. However, we decry insurance company profits, but now we're forcing everyone to be covered by the same companies! (Of course that's why nationalization will come up at a later date now.)
Last but not least, America is structured differently and a lot larger than places where healthcare is implemented. Aside from helping put countries on the too big to fail list (IE: Greece, Spain, etc), it simply costs too much for a country that's already in debt. Currently each US citizen owes about 40,000.00 to the national debt, if you drop back to taxpayers, it's $115,000.00. These numbers are already astronomical. Now there are more taxes yet that amount will continue to balloon.
kiwimac
Member
- Dec 19, 2009
- 117
- 13
- 18
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- New Zealand
All civilised nations recognise the need to help all of those in their borders. Why is it I wonder that the US is so determined that universal health care is a bad idea? It works just fine in the Scandic countries and in various other places right throughout the world all without descending into the pits of socialism.
Tavita
New Member
I don't believe all parties in the UK are socialist in nature. Maybe like here, it was the Labor party that brought the concept in but when other parties came to power the health system was not done away with.
It was the Labor party here in Oz who brought in universal health care in 1975 and until now each party brought to power has endeavored to make positive additions or corrections to the system (at the moment the health system itself is sick and with this coming election both parties are trying to work out ways to make it better.. to win votes of course). Having universal health care does not mean it's going to be perfect but at least every single Aussie has access to health care without being thrown into debt.
Certain aspects of our govt and systems may be socialist in nature ( and you have some too... social security, education, etc), but it doesn't stand to reason that we are a blooming socialist nation. I don't think after thirty five years of Medicare we are moving closer to towards having a full on socialist society. We do have a Socialist party but they never come close to being brought into power.
I think this is the linchpin. The US is structured differently as you said, and there are far more people. If they are increasing your taxes so dramatically then maybe the govt should be listening to the people on the street and taking some time to work out a better system that's not going to burden the common man so much.
Health care is really not the issue here if you think carefully about it.
The issue boils down to un-productive people living off the avails of productive people mandated by legislation..
That is what socialism is. Legislation to force you to serve the king's decrees.
Our North American forefathers were peasants who left behind the kings and queens and lords and landlords and barons and Popes to be free people in a free land.
It is amazing what a bunch of free peasants can accomplish in a couple of hundred years.
But we are slowly bringing back the kings to rule over us. You are losing your country one socialist vote at a time and without a shot being fired.
The issue boils down to un-productive people living off the avails of productive people mandated by legislation..
That is what socialism is. Legislation to force you to serve the king's decrees.
Our North American forefathers were peasants who left behind the kings and queens and lords and landlords and barons and Popes to be free people in a free land.
It is amazing what a bunch of free peasants can accomplish in a couple of hundred years.
But we are slowly bringing back the kings to rule over us. You are losing your country one socialist vote at a time and without a shot being fired.
We could debate the meaning of Socialism all day long, but it's tenants remain the same from the etymology of the word. You have social which comes to us basically from the old meaning of social which was Middle French social and Latin socialis. I'll let others dig that back as far as they want to go, but the original meaning of the word is in the sense of society. Around the middle of the 19th century to the turn of last century, the word social in the more modern sense came to be and then we had Socialism. (-ism is a state of being, doctrine, etc.)
The idea of socialism is simply that society owns the means of production. It's distinguished from Communism in that Socialism is on the way to Communism in Marxist theory and it basically refers to a stronger government control as opposed to the communal system. The problem with this distinction is that governments tend to control as much as they can, hence the reason Communism failed - far quicker than other forms of government. Names don't always hide the truth, though. Socialism is simplified to be when the government controls production and distribution - this can be healthcare, this can be nation utilities, etc.
The American theory (at least the original one) for government is that it steps in only at the last moment when nothing else works. Think of it as a last-ditch safety net which is not used all too often. Unfortunately, in modern times, this paradigm has shifted. We like convenience and it makes sense that most societies like to superficially place their cares on others.
To argue that universal healthcare (in Canada, for example 70% is public ownership) is not socialist...well that's a bad argument from the get-go. The very meaning of the word Socialism defines the state of public healthcare. If society owns it (IE: pays for it), that's Socialism.
These changes tend to creep rather than come overnight in revolutions these days. Like it or not, each industry and service that the government takes on moves it closer to socialism by definition. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are all programs that do just that. I don't dispute that and I think that proves the overall point of this thread. Personally, I'd rather have those few thousand dollars each year that come out of my paycheck for social security to invest privately for my future and retirement. I could easily make a much better gain than our government, because it's effectively a ponzi scheme - but that's another argument for another day.
That's the problem, look at how Medicaid and Medicare have been run - which are microcosms of universal healthcare (and as large as some countries that have universal care I might add). We've raked up unfunded liabilities for more than all the money in the world already. We're talking well over $100 trillion!
(One Trillion Seconds = 31,688 Years, 269 Days, 1 Hour, 46 Minutes, 40 Seconds for a little perspective.)
The problem with this bill is now the government has entered into the arena of telling you what you can and cannot do. We must buy healthcare, otherwise you're penalized. The problem with that is that the people who don't buy it generally cannot afford it. Yes there are subsidies, but come to America sometime and watch subsidies work. And that goes to what Martin says - the largest single danger is that now the government can regulate anything. Look up the commerce clause of the Constitution here in the US. They've now expanded that you not only regulating what you buy when you buy it, but now they can regulate what you buy and tell you to purchase something. This is done with cars of course already (car insurance), but you're not born with an inherent right to drive.
This discussion does not even consider illegal immigration, which will be the next focus after the interlude of financial reform.
The idea of socialism is simply that society owns the means of production. It's distinguished from Communism in that Socialism is on the way to Communism in Marxist theory and it basically refers to a stronger government control as opposed to the communal system. The problem with this distinction is that governments tend to control as much as they can, hence the reason Communism failed - far quicker than other forms of government. Names don't always hide the truth, though. Socialism is simplified to be when the government controls production and distribution - this can be healthcare, this can be nation utilities, etc.
The American theory (at least the original one) for government is that it steps in only at the last moment when nothing else works. Think of it as a last-ditch safety net which is not used all too often. Unfortunately, in modern times, this paradigm has shifted. We like convenience and it makes sense that most societies like to superficially place their cares on others.
To argue that universal healthcare (in Canada, for example 70% is public ownership) is not socialist...well that's a bad argument from the get-go. The very meaning of the word Socialism defines the state of public healthcare. If society owns it (IE: pays for it), that's Socialism.
These changes tend to creep rather than come overnight in revolutions these days. Like it or not, each industry and service that the government takes on moves it closer to socialism by definition. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are all programs that do just that. I don't dispute that and I think that proves the overall point of this thread. Personally, I'd rather have those few thousand dollars each year that come out of my paycheck for social security to invest privately for my future and retirement. I could easily make a much better gain than our government, because it's effectively a ponzi scheme - but that's another argument for another day.
That's the problem, look at how Medicaid and Medicare have been run - which are microcosms of universal healthcare (and as large as some countries that have universal care I might add). We've raked up unfunded liabilities for more than all the money in the world already. We're talking well over $100 trillion!
(One Trillion Seconds = 31,688 Years, 269 Days, 1 Hour, 46 Minutes, 40 Seconds for a little perspective.)
The problem with this bill is now the government has entered into the arena of telling you what you can and cannot do. We must buy healthcare, otherwise you're penalized. The problem with that is that the people who don't buy it generally cannot afford it. Yes there are subsidies, but come to America sometime and watch subsidies work. And that goes to what Martin says - the largest single danger is that now the government can regulate anything. Look up the commerce clause of the Constitution here in the US. They've now expanded that you not only regulating what you buy when you buy it, but now they can regulate what you buy and tell you to purchase something. This is done with cars of course already (car insurance), but you're not born with an inherent right to drive.
This discussion does not even consider illegal immigration, which will be the next focus after the interlude of financial reform.
Thank You, my brother for your input. One hint of socialism I've noticed is , socialism does not have any use for the free interprice system. This US cabinet also wants control over businesses. They want to control salaries payed to CEO;s and business owners. Solely in the pockets of organized labor and defense attorneys. Note nothing done with unneeded law suits, frivilous medical law suits. I watched the fight over that on the Senate Floor as well as the well of the House. Those who supported this health bill faught vigorusly against caps on law suits. One of the main reasons our medical bills are so high and doctors are leaving their practices. Now along with the health bill, student loans was taken over. The President wants these students who get government loans to work for the government for a period of time after graduation. Also in this health bill government will go so far as to tell us what we can and cannot eat. Scarey.
Bingo. The problem with government setting prices is evident when you ask people about any given issue in economics. There are dozens of opinions on how to handle things, and the most popular right now comes to us from a British Economist from the first half of last century, John Maynard Keynes. The problem with government setting prices is most evident in things like price ceilings and floors, which the healthcare penalty is effectively a floor. You can bet there won't be a premium below the penalty to be found. (Which it does start out lower than most, but it will increase.) Frankly no man or group should be in charge of an entire economy, because men (and women) do not always make the best decisions. I'm sorry to report, but everyone has their limitations. Remember how the complaint a few hundred years ago was that a king often went to war and conducted policies in his own whim? Yes it sounds like I'm advocating the invisible hand of Adam Smith because I pretty much am. Government was meant to be the last resort to keep the train on the tracks - it was never meant to be the train, tracks, and conductor.
As far as Keynesian economics working...well I'd merely point to the housing market to say that the strategy fails. I think time will show that the stimulus has failed as well; look at the vitals of the market, there is still extremely low volume in stocks because people are scared. I don't know when we will learn that you cannot legislate everything and anything. There will always be loopholes and unfortunately the rich and powerful tend to benefit from them. Making people have healthcare will not solve anything.
I still believe these leaders are well intentioned in their own minds. They think their system works; they don't know any better because Obama represents the generation brought up on these theories in the academic realm. Unfortunately, this has also bred an arrogance well beyond measure because most of those in Washington really do feel they know best and better than anyone else.
Your right my Brother , I'm already hearing about imigration that the White House wants to put forth. It seems , again they have no intention of listening to the citizens outcry , amnisty for illegals is what is being stated. This government is no longer a "Government of the People and for the People and By the people", instead it is becoming "People for the Government, by the Government.". When we hear the new title "progressive party". we need to take heed as to what they mean by progressive. First , that the US Constitution is no longer written in stone, but our Founding Fathers meant for it to be living paper, to be changed at will , that suits those who are in power now. I find this very frightening as an American Citizen. A perfect example is how the phraise "separation of church and state". The meaning has nothing to do with how it is being used today. This I believe was the first step to be taken by the "progressive party". Just as change of any government begins. Attack the church, first, take away the guns, second. Tear down the founding of the country by attacking the Founding Fathers. Create problems that will cause the citizens to sell out their freedoms so government can meet their needs. Give up independance for dependancy on those in power. All these steps are and have been taking place right under our eyes. When a communist leader says he is pleased with the way America is being run, all kinds of red lights should come on. He seems to know" what time it is " , do we?
[email protected]
Choir Loft
America has a militarist government and is not in imminent danger of becoming socialist.
First of all you should know that as of this writing most of the health care provisions that passed have already been watered down to the point where they are grossly ineffective.
Those who whine about creeping socialism have nothing to worry about.
Those who whine about creeping socialism need to remember that the Social Security system is America's biggest and most complex leap forward into socialism.
Those who whine about creeping socialism would rather see someone else lose their benefits and not their own. When its time to collect, not a single one of them will refuse to accept a government check. This is politically motivated hypocrisy of the highest order, not to mention unChristian (I AM MY BROTHERS KEEPER).
The motivation for all the rhetoric against national healthcare in America comes from the insurance companies and the AMA (American Medical Association).
These big boys lobby congress constantly to tighten the restrictions against adequate health care and proper compensation for injuries and disease.
They collect the premiums and then drag their feet on payment of claims. It's a big money game and Americans are too stupid, too lazy or too brainwashed to see through it.
We holler about 'creeping socialism' and what it will cost at the same time that we wave the American flag; paying the highest taxes on the planet to support the largest military in history..........to defend us against what empire?
Once upon a time Americans fought against an empire (the British). Today we fight to maintain one (ours). Do we really need a Navy that is larger than the next 17 nations combined?
How about giving up a couple of aircraft carriers and getting a national health care system for everybody?
Oh I forget. That's socialism AND I'M NOT MY BROTHERS KEEPER.
This is America. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition (even if there's no one to shoot at).
Former President Regan said "Freedom Comes Through strength" also "Government is not the solution, government is the problem". Government sure is a lot of help in the Gulf Oil Spill right now, ask anyone who lives there or make their money in the Gulf. They'll tell you what they think about government involvement.
We accumulate about 43 billion dollars a day in debt. That number is getting higher with this administration.
Health care at face value will provide many with Health care that could not afford it. Millions wait and wait with constant symptoms of things and never get treated, costing a billions upon billions of treatment that could have been avoided.
This is the thought of health care. Get people the treatment they need now, and avoid the high cost it takes to treat someone who has gone into chronic stages of their problem.
In Illinois the dental programs for Medicare have closed. It is now a six month wait for anyone who can't afford dental care to get any. Medicare is not paying their bills, so nobody is taking it. Many have sore jaws, and have to live in constant pain.
They are covered to get pain medication, but not the expertise that oral surgery will give them that will fix the issue. Even the Doctors that do this in are in short supply. The waiting list is long for corrective surgery, and many are suffering. Illinois offices get thousands of calls a day for help, and nothing can be done.
This Health care reform will address these issue so that many will receive the care they need. In turn, we will sacrifice the top notch medical breakthroughs the United States has enjoyed, and those that had valid insurance plans will suffer with sub standard care.
Large companies have also stated that because of this new reform, they will drop all medical coverage on all employee's stating that it will be cheaper to pay the imposed fines, than try to provide a care package as they do now. They said the employee's can seek the government care they need. This will result in sub standard care, and waiting lines for those that were once insured.
So, it looks like a good idea on the surface, but who is really going to pay for it?
Mike.
Health care at face value will provide many with Health care that could not afford it. Millions wait and wait with constant symptoms of things and never get treated, costing a billions upon billions of treatment that could have been avoided.
This is the thought of health care. Get people the treatment they need now, and avoid the high cost it takes to treat someone who has gone into chronic stages of their problem.
In Illinois the dental programs for Medicare have closed. It is now a six month wait for anyone who can't afford dental care to get any. Medicare is not paying their bills, so nobody is taking it. Many have sore jaws, and have to live in constant pain.
They are covered to get pain medication, but not the expertise that oral surgery will give them that will fix the issue. Even the Doctors that do this in are in short supply. The waiting list is long for corrective surgery, and many are suffering. Illinois offices get thousands of calls a day for help, and nothing can be done.
This Health care reform will address these issue so that many will receive the care they need. In turn, we will sacrifice the top notch medical breakthroughs the United States has enjoyed, and those that had valid insurance plans will suffer with sub standard care.
Large companies have also stated that because of this new reform, they will drop all medical coverage on all employee's stating that it will be cheaper to pay the imposed fines, than try to provide a care package as they do now. They said the employee's can seek the government care they need. This will result in sub standard care, and waiting lines for those that were once insured.
So, it looks like a good idea on the surface, but who is really going to pay for it?
Mike.
all i can say about healthcare is that Jesus gave out free healthcare to the needy so why shouldnt a govt who claims to be ruling for God give out free healthcare?
The early congregations set money aside for the needy ones because God IS a socialist. Just look at the Mosaic law and you can see that.
The early congregations set money aside for the needy ones because God IS a socialist. Just look at the Mosaic law and you can see that.
Because there is a huge diffrence between free donations to charity for the needy and using force to obtain someone elses property and then give it to a third person. You must understand that the moral values the Bible teaches are individual values that people must do out of free will. For example the Bible says "Thou shall not kill" but we all agree that a government has the authority to wage war in defence or even sometimes in aggression to help a people that is being oppressed.
For every quote of context you can find that supports massive taxation to welfare by the state you can also find quotes from the Bible that teaches the inherent natural order of private property as the foundation for material distribution in a society under God.
And for all the people who thinks "What is the big deal? more welfare means better society for the poor, and a society is judged by the way it treats its poor" you should really start reading economic theory start with Sowell or Friedman. And if you are so blind that you refuse to believe in theory then let empirical statistics be your guide. Welfare programs are complex and diverse, and all have unintended consequences. If you think that more welfare benefits the poor than the rich then please try use reason and read this empirical data:
Percentage of State Redistribution of Welfare to different classes:
Socialist
France: Poor=17,5% Upper and Rich Class= 42,2%
Norway: Poor=21% Upper and Rich Class= 23,2%
Italy: Poor=15,6% Upper and Rich Class= 47,5%
Sweden: Poor= 15,2% Upper and Rich Class= 37,3
Capitalist
USA: Poor=29,7% Upper and Rich Class= 27%
(The reason for USA seemingly high distribution too rich is because of Tag Welfare system, but comparatively USA Free Enterprise still gives more money to the poor than Socialism)
Source: Smeeding (1995) Table 7.5
From this data set you can clearly see that the more state welfare a society uses the more money is given to the Rich and not the poor.
Sorry to be blunt, but all you socialists who claim to use the bible as a foundation for your socialist ideology are unscientific rhetoricians, because even if your use of Bible as moral/political/ethical foundation is true, your welfare programs hurt the poor and benefits the rich so in conclusions Socialism is just a sad ridiculous oxymoron between theory and data.
Similar threads
