Why do the Repuclicans have such a hate on for universal healthcare in America?

[StanJ]

Well let's see, 18 trillion dollars in debt. Hmm.... <_<

Let's keep spending money, sure that works.

I have no idea what the cost would be, but if it is tax based it pays for itself.

Government healthcare sounds good, but ultimately becomes corrupted like everything else...it's called abuse of the system...people get bored..oh make an appointment with the doctor, and get complete check up..meanwhile someone who needs a checkup and is working, has to wait weeks, months sometimes to get an appointment for an ailment..the clinics have become more like a old folks club, day care for children, aboriginal drop in centre or whatever..Cost to the taxpayer is horrendous...the other thing is universal health care is abused financially by the abortionists who commit their horrendous crimes on humanity, the abortion of babies at tax payer expense, even though it is an "elective" procedure....The list goes on and on and on...so think twice for adopting universal healthcare

These are unsubstantiated scare tactics, that sadly many use to spread disinformation. In my doctors office as in many, you only get what you actually need and if you miss your appointment you are obliged to pay for it yourself or lose your doctors services. Like anything in government, it is required to be scrutinized and budgeted. This is the reason we in Canada have Auditor Generals both Federally and Provincially. Cost to the tax payer is NOT horrendous, it is minimal as it is spread over ALL tax bases. Abortion is a red herring to the actual issue of the OP. UH does not imply universal morality. We as Christians, are not meant to legislate our morality.

"Universal" just means to me that I not only continue to pay for my own healthcare, but I also pay for the bum across the street.

UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?

 

[Born_Again]

"UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?"

The person in that story was at least grateful. And I doubt they had 6 kids, all by different fathers. They were in need and an unfortunate victim.

 

[heretoeternity]

I have no idea what the cost would be, but if it is tax based it pays for itself.

These are unsubstantiated scare tactics, that sadly many use to spread disinformation. In my doctors office as in many, you only get what you actually need and if you miss your appointment you are obliged to pay for it yourself or lose your doctors services. Like anything in government, it is required to be scrutinized and budgeted. This is the reason we in Canada have Auditor Generals both Federally and Provincially. Cost to the tax payer is NOT horrendous, it is minimal as it is spread over ALL tax bases. Abortion is a red herring to the actual issue of the OP. UH does not imply universal morality. We as Christians, are not meant to legislate our morality.

UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?






Stan, unsubstantiated scare tactics? I have experienced it first hand in Manitoba....If you are working and have little time to get away from work, try and get in to see a doctor for legitimate reasons. The system is so clogged up with the cases I mentioned, you get an appointment 3 months down the road, and then wait and wait in the office..that means time off from work...try and get to see a specialist..yeah right...another wait weeks, maybe months...
Sure the concept is good, but there has to be a weeding out process for those whol run to a doctor to get their toenails clipped, and those who rarely use the system and only when there is a legitimate need...
The auditor general Stan? You know better than that...there are politcally correct issues such as feminism, abortion, native rights..do you actually believe the AG is going to report on their abuse of the system? I will give you a clue..no the AG will not go there....
While I am for access to medical attention for everyone, for sure...there has to be a better way to weed out the abuses of the system, and keep the plan for only necessary cases, and not elective procedures, and repetitive claims of a frivilous nature.

 

[StanJ]

When exactly was this and where did you live? Of course there are always walk in clinics open for those who don't want to go during the day, but that's your choice, so don't blame the system.
As a user of the system for over 60 years I can tell you that is NOT the case, so yes these are UNSUBSTANTIATED claims.

Only podiatrists clip toenails and they make you pay for it. That or you can go have a manipedi.

They do all the time so I don't know where you get your facts, but it's not from first hand knowledge.

The ONLY procedures that do have inherent delays, ARE the electives, and so it should be. I'm pretty sure I can trust the doctors to decide what is and isn't pressing and frivolous. Lay people really have no idea as their opinion is subjective and lacks much information.

 

[Dan57]

You were already paying for "the bum across the street" (nice Christian attitude btw).

Enabling slothfulness is not a nice Christian attribute; "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The bums I was referring to don't necessarily need help, they're just experts at exploiting others.

UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?

The bum across the street isn't necessarily a victim that was robbed and beaten, they are often just lazy slobs who have never worked and wouldn't take a job if you offered them one. So while I have no problem being a good Samaritan towards those in need, I resent paying the bills for people who simply refuse to put forth any effort to take care of themselves. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8)

 

[River Jordan]

So what's your solution Dan? A "bum" comes to the ER having a heart attack....do you send him back out into the street to die?

 

[Dan57]

I believe that any civilized society must exercise compassion for the poor and needy. But to elevate everyone
to the same level is socialism, and it kills individual incentive and ambition. If we give everyone the same healthcare,
why not give everyone the same house, car, etc? Beyond emergency medicine, I don't think anyone should have
a right to anything more unless they're prepared to pay for it. I'm not referring to a hardworking poor person who can't
afford a hospital stay, that's what Medicaid is for.. But I resent paying for premium healthcare for a drug addicted bum
who's heart attack is self-induced.. Emergency treatment, yes.. But heart transplant, stents, or valve replacement, no.
Just my opinion of course.

 

[River Jordan]

I believe that any civilized society must exercise compassion for the poor and needy.

So do you believe the poor and needy should have access to regular health care (e.g., preventative care) and the rest of us should cover the costs?

But to elevate everyone to the same level is socialism, and it kills individual incentive and ambition. If we give everyone the same healthcare, why not give everyone the same house, car, etc?

Um.....probably because those things aren't the same? :unsure:

Beyond emergency medicine, I don't think anyone should have a right to anything more unless they're prepared to pay for it.

Again, by waiting until a health situation gets to an emergency, you've already unnecessarily increased costs by a lot (and reduced the likelihood of successful care). You understand that, right?

I'm not referring to a hardworking poor person who can't afford a hospital stay, that's what Medicaid is for.

So you agree with expanding gov't health coverage to cover more Americans?

But I resent paying for premium healthcare for a drug addicted bum who's heart attack is self-induced.. Emergency treatment, yes.. But heart transplant, stents, or valve replacement, no.

What about covering this "bum's" (again, I don't recall Jesus limiting anything to just the "non-bums") treatment for his drug addiction, so he doesn't have to wait until he has a heart attack to get health care?

Seems to me you have a very "I got mine, screw everyone else" attitude, which I'm finding is shockingly common in conservative Christian circles.

 

[pom2014]

The second great command says to love your neighbour as you do yourself. So of you're the man down on your luck would you want to be helped?

If you say yes, then do it to others.
If you say no, then please seek mental health care.

The second is a command, not a suggestion.

Worse if you break the second, you break the first automatically.

 

[Dan57]

What about covering this "bum's" (again, I don't recall Jesus limiting anything to just the "non-bums") treatment for his drug addiction, so he doesn't have to wait until he has a heart attack to get health care?

Seems to me you have a very "I got mine, screw everyone else" attitude, which I'm finding is shockingly common in conservative Christian circles.

I certainly don't oppose helping people with addictions, in fact I've paid for 2 people to get into rehab.. Its not a matter of "I got mine", its a matter of helping others to help themselves. You do that by helping and requiring them to take responsibility for themselves, instead of enabling them to live off the welfare of others. Conservative Christians prefer to teach a man to fish so he'll be able to feed himself. Your philosophy just keeps people reliant on society to survive, which doesn't solve the underlining problem. Empowering people to be self-sufficient is more Christian than making sure they remain dependent on you.

The second great command says to love your neighbour as you do yourself. So of you're the man down on your luck would you want to be helped?

If you say yes, then do it to others.
If you say no, then please seek mental health care.

Loving your neighbor doesn't necessarily mean emptying your bank account so your neighbor doesn't need to work. That's not love, its not even charity, its removing the incentive for someone else to reach their potential in life. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn...The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Again, I'm not speaking about people who are down on their luck, my reference to "bums" was directed towards deadbeats who demand that everyone else take care of them. In such cases, sometimes tough love is more compassionate that anything else.

 

[pom2014]

Let me ask you, our King said give your coat, go twice the distance for people that harm you.

Whereas Paul says don't to that unless he deserves it.

Whom do you follow? The King that gives to even the wicked or The man Paul?

 

[StanJ]

Enabling slothfulness is not a nice Christian attribute; "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). The bums I was referring to don't necessarily need help, they're just experts at exploiting others.


The bum across the street isn't necessarily a victim that was robbed and beaten, they are often just lazy slobs who have never worked and wouldn't take a job if you offered them one. So while I have no problem being a good Samaritan towards those in need, I resent paying the bills for people who simply refuse to put forth any effort to take care of themselves. "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8)

Paul was speaking about the communal lifestyle being lived then, in which ALL were to contribute. Your perception of what a slothful person is, is rather biased as not all so-called bums are slothful. Besides are you advocating that all Christian missions that feed the hungry are not doing God's will? The issue is UH, not lazy people, which is a matter of perception.

FYI, there are no bums across my street and those that are downtown where street people live are not necessarily there because they deserve to be. Yours is a rather sad and un-useful stereotypical indictment of all street people. It is also not an attitude Christian's should have.
Also please note there was no GOOD Samaritan in Luke, he was just A Samaritan. A proper Christian attitude does not mean we are GOOD, because Jesus said no man is good. You are not paying anybody's bills by paying your taxes, except your taxes. I would respectfully suggest you look inwards about your attitude towards social welfare, and not take Paul's words OUT of context.

Let me ask you, our King said give your coat, go twice the distance for people that harm you.

Whereas Paul says don't to that unless he deserves it.

Whom do you follow? The King that gives to even the wicked or The man Paul?

Paul didn't contradict Jesus pom. They both spoke about social responsibility. Paul's instruction was towards the communal body and those who purported to be Christian but would mooch off the real Christians.

"UH means you don't pay anywhere NEAR what your healthcare actually costs. You pay a fraction of the cost. As far as the bum is concerned, you apparently have never read the story of the Samaritan in Luke 10?"

The person in that story was at least grateful. And I doubt they had 6 kids, all by different fathers. They were in need and an unfortunate victim.

Assumption does not justify treating anyone other than how you would want to be treated. The moral being conveyed was one of social responsibility by Samaritans, not who the person in the ditch was. We don't deserve salvation so why should we want anyone to qualify for social welfare?

I believe that any civilized society must exercise compassion for the poor and needy. But to elevate everyone
to the same level is socialism, and it kills individual incentive and ambition. If we give everyone the same healthcare,
why not give everyone the same house, car, etc? Beyond emergency medicine, I don't think anyone should have
a right to anything more unless they're prepared to pay for it. I'm not referring to a hardworking poor person who can't
afford a hospital stay, that's what Medicaid is for.. But I resent paying for premium healthcare for a drug addicted bum
who's heart attack is self-induced.. Emergency treatment, yes.. But heart transplant, stents, or valve replacement, no.
Just my opinion of course.

My UH paid for the two stents in my coronary artery. My eating lifestyle is what contributed to my CAD. Tell me what the difference is, in your view, between me and the bums you seem to be so hung up on? In Canada, UH is not premium healthcare, it is standard healthcare. Medicaid is NOT UH.
As Christians, nothing we did warranted our salvation, so why would you want anyone to qualify for UH by their lifestyle, when you didn't qualify for salvation by yours?

I certainly don't oppose helping people with addictions, in fact I've paid for 2 people to get into rehab.. Its not a matter of "I got mine", its a matter of helping others to help themselves. You do that by helping and requiring them to take responsibility for themselves, instead of enabling them to live off the welfare of others. Conservative Christians prefer to teach a man to fish so he'll be able to feed himself. Your philosophy just keeps people reliant on society to survive, which doesn't solve the underlining problem. Empowering people to be self-sufficient is more Christian than making sure they remain dependent on you.


Loving your neighbor doesn't necessarily mean emptying your bank account so your neighbor doesn't need to work. That's not love, its not even charity, its removing the incentive for someone else to reach their potential in life. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn...The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Again, I'm not speaking about people who are down on their luck, my reference to "bums" was directed towards deadbeats who demand that everyone else take care of them. In such cases, sometimes tough love is more compassionate that anything else.

Fist of all there is no qualification in scripture to help others to help themselves. Charity has NO qualifications. We are either charitable or we aren't. Jesus healed the bum and said go and sin no more. Obviously Jesus didn't hold the bums sins against him did he?

Loving you neighbour means if he asks you for your cloak you give him your shirt as well. Matt 5:40.
There is no limit to love and Jesus showed this.

The point to UH is that it does not involve really ANY sacrifice, as it is paid out of our personal income taxes. It is NOT sacrificial and involves very little after thought. Looking for reasons to not pay it only shows one's lack of charity.

 

[heretoeternity]

Stan the Canadian system needs major overhaul to weed out the elective procedures as I mentioned before..this will reduce waiting times from some horrendous 4 or 5 hours in the overworked walk in clinics..maybe you got time to wait, but as one who worked, could not afford that kind of time to wait for a legitimate complaint...even the emergency wards are overworked because of the flaws in the system...too many frivilous repeat cases, need maybe a deterrent fee to weed out the legit...the taxes..yeah..highest in the western world...oh maybe AB does not have a sales tax yet, and lower income tax rate because of the oil revenues, but other provinces are not so fortunate to have this source to fund this, Manitoba for one....anyway the concept is great, but the present day realism dictates a complete overhaul of the system...but I do agree no one should be denied necessary medical service, and no one should have to wait for a doctors appoint for a month or two, and another month or two to see a specialist..that is absurd...overhaul the UHC system is what needs to be done!

 

[Trekson]

I guess I'll put my three cents in. I'm against UH simply because healthcare isn't the governments business. Neither are the education systems or food stamps or interfering with state rights. Nor is it funding other countries war plans or supporting them with food and necessities in a non-emergency situation. Nor is it over-regulating the small businesses and local farmers. In fact if the gov't got their hands out of 90% of the American pie, we would all be better off. We are a republic NOT a democracy, although that is too often forgotten. If anyone wants the worst possible result from any "program", put it in the hands of the gov't! BTW, the church is not or at least shouldn't be a socialist entity as someone in a previous post pointed out.

 

[River Jordan]

Here in the US, it's amazing how evangelical Christianity has become synonymous with far right-wing politics.

 

[StanJ]

Stan the Canadian system needs major overhaul to weed out the elective procedures as I mentioned before..this will reduce waiting times from some horrendous 4 or 5 hours in the overworked walk in clinics..maybe you got time to wait, but as one who worked, could not afford that kind of time to wait for a legitimate complaint...even the emergency wards are overworked because of the flaws in the system...too many frivilous repeat cases, need maybe a deterrent fee to weed out the legit...the taxes..yeah..highest in the western world...oh maybe AB does not have a sales tax yet, and lower income tax rate because of the oil revenues, but other provinces are not so fortunate to have this source to fund this, Manitoba for one....anyway the concept is great, but the present day realism dictates a complete overhaul of the system...but I do agree no one should be denied necessary medical service, and no one should have to wait for a doctors appoint for a month or two, and another month or two to see a specialist..that is absurd...overhaul the UHC system is what needs to be done!

Nobody waits 4-5 hours in a walk in. That may be so in an ER, but that does not happen regularly and consistently, and they are not full of people going for electives. My last visit to an ER for a broken hand was back in the summer and I was triaged and waited for less than 2 hours to see a doctor and get an Xray.
I have lived in Quebec, BC and Alberta and the UH system is the same all over.
The taxes in Canada are on par with the USA, which you can establish by an online search, but our INCLUDES UH.
Again it appears you don't live in Canada so your views seem to be second hand and very skewed.
ALL systems can stands for improvement, but the UAH system in Canada is far far better than what the U.S. has, and far more equitable, which is the whole point of UH.

Here in the US, it's amazing how evangelical Christianity has become synonymous with far right-wing politics.

I agree, but only because most republicans lie about their belief system and take advantage of some very naïve Christians.
Sadly, many Christians are more than willing to vote in a Mormon than a person from the liberal side, despite the fact that they are more concerned with social responsibility than the GOP is.

I guess I'll put my three cents in. I'm against UH simply because healthcare isn't the governments business. Neither are the education systems or food stamps or interfering with state rights. Nor is it funding other countries war plans or supporting them with food and necessities in a non-emergency situation. Nor is it over-regulating the small businesses and local farmers. In fact if the gov't got their hands out of 90% of the American pie, we would all be better off. We are a republic NOT a democracy, although that is too often forgotten. If anyone wants the worst possible result from any "program", put it in the hands of the gov't! BTW, the church is not or at least shouldn't be a socialist entity as someone in a previous post pointed out.

That's GOP rhetoric. The government IS responsible for many aspects of daily life, and IMO it is far more important to have a system of UH than the DMV.
Let's try to stay on topic and not dash down rabbit trails on other issues. I also have a problem with my country giving millions of dollars to other countries, but that is world economics in a nutshell and I don't purport to understand those issues.
If you don't think Acts 4:32-37 portrays a scenario of socialism, then I suggest you don't have a good grasp on the definition of it. It does not connote communism.

 

[Dan57]

Loving you neighbour means if he asks you for your cloak you give him your shirt as well. Matt 5:40.
There is no limit to love and Jesus showed this.

Good, then send me all your money, and give me your shirt also.

 

[Trekson]

Hi StanJ, Your words: "That's GOP rhetoric. The government IS responsible for many aspects of daily life, and IMO it is far more important to have a system of UH than the DMV."

Yes, it is GOP rhetoric and I stand by it. While you're correct in saying the gov't has BECOME responsible for many aspects of daily life, the fact is, it never should have been allowed to come to that responsibility in the first place!

Your words: "If you don't think Acts 4:32-37 portrays a scenario of socialism, then I suggest you don't have a good grasp on the definition of it. It does not connote communism."

No, this is not socialism, this was CHURCH LIFE and was ONLY for those IN the church! I wish all churches would be this way and Paul later points out it is the CHURCH'S responsibility to care for widows and orphans. We have drifted far away from that. NOWHERE in scripture is it suggested any type of government take on that responsibility. We, the church, have ceded that responsibility to the gov't and we will most likely be judged for it. As believer's we are to look to God for our healing, not the gov't! That doesn't mean I'm anti-medicine, because I'm not, but recognize this that whenever the populace looks away from God for a solution and turns to the gov't, that is anti-christ, so what you are promoting is an anti-christian style of living for our nations.

 

[StanJ]

Good, then send me all your money, and give me your shirt also.

I can't really tell if you got what I said or are just joking. :unsure:

Hi StanJ,

Yes, it is GOP rhetoric and I stand by it. While you're correct in saying the gov't has BECOME responsible for many aspects of daily life, the fact is, it never should have been allowed to come to that responsibility in the first place!

Your words: "If you don't think Acts 4:32-37 portrays a scenario of socialism, then I suggest you don't have a good grasp on the definition of it. It does not connote communism."

No, this is not socialism, this was CHURCH LIFE and was ONLY for those IN the church! I wish all churches would be this way and Paul later points out it is the CHURCH'S responsibility to care for widows and orphans. We have drifted far away from that. NOWHERE in scripture is it suggested any type of government take on that responsibility. We, the church, have ceded that responsibility to the gov't and we will most likely be judged for it. As believer's we are to look to God for our healing, not the gov't! That doesn't mean I'm anti-medicine, because I'm not, but recognize this that whenever the populace looks away from God for a solution and turns to the gov't, that is anti-christ, so what you are promoting is an anti-christian style of living for our nations.

Of course you do, but that doesn't make it right or righteous.

The POINT is that the church is socialistic, so it's good that the world would be as well, or do you not think emulating the church is a good idea?
The influence of Jesus' message and sacrifice has indeed effected the world, in and out of the church and there is nothing wrong with that. We are told to SUPPORT the government as God is the one who puts those people there, so it does indeed not speak about TYPE as in GOP or DNP, just government. There's a big difference, in case you haven't noticed. The bureaucrats are always there. The politicians are the ones that come and go. Thankfully, some effect change for the better. We are NOT here to bring about legislated morality, God makes it in His Word, that HIS kingdom WILL come and what it WILL be.
Meanwhile any way we can effect positive change and rid the world of inequity, is a good thing. Government is not and was never meant to lead people to God. That is God's job Himself along with our obedience in witnessing and spreading the good news, which is Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Those who are too worried about how much money is being spent on good social programs and accuse the government of stealing, should really have a conversation with God and get their priorities straight.

Matt 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Dan57]

I can't really tell if you got what I said or are just joking. :unsure:

I was joking... But your point that Christians should be socialist suggest that whats yours is mine and a worker is not worthy of his wages. So I thought it would be in order to spread your wealth around . I disagree with most of your points and interpretations, but I understand that your government takes care of you and you appreciate being part of the collective. I simply prefer to be independent of government and take care of myself, the nanny state doesn't appeal to me and I don't like surrendering every aspect of my personal life and responsibilities over to government. I believe government should be limited to governing, otherwise it becomes our god and lifeblood.