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

[River Jordan]

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.

You're forgetting history. We tried "let the churches and charities handle it" and it didn't work. We had sick, disabled, and elderly people literally dying in the streets.

And regarding this whole socialism discussion....

5 Reasons Why Many American Christians Wouldn’t Like The First Ones

1. The first Christians rejected personal ownership of property and engaged in a redistribution of wealth.

Americanized Christians often fight to make sure our taxes are lower, fight to repeal healthcare for poor people, and throw a fit over a small portion of our income going to provide foodstamps. While touting “voluntary” and “private” charity as the way to go, we give on average 2-3% of our income to the church or charities– not nearly enough to actually address the needy in any meaningful way. But what about the early Christians?

Well, the first Christians were quite different. In the book of Acts (the book that tells the story of original Christianity) tells us that “all the believers were together and held everything in common, selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45). We’re further told that there were no poor among them, because those who had land or property sold it so that this wealth could be “redistributed” to the needy (Acts 4:35). While on one hand communal property and redistribution of wealth was voluntary, scripture tells us that “all” of the believers in the church did this– meaning that it wasn’t exactly voluntary but a condition of being accepted into the group.

If Americanized Christians were to see how the first Christians lived, it would be denounced as some sort of communist cult being led by folks who distorted the Gospel.

 

[StanJ]

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.

If that is your view of socialism then no wonder you don't understand.
All I can say is you can't really be a fully committed Christian and NOT surrender every aspect of your personal life.
I believe government should be socially responsible for it's citizens because too many people, including Christians, abdicate their personal responsibilities to do so.
Great link River!

 

[Trekson]

Hi River, I dispute your conjectures. I do believe that if churches were led by leaders who were actually concerned about their congregations instead of the next building program, the people and the church would thrive. You also must remember that these were house based churches with no plumbing, heating, electrical, etc. costs or expenses. The leaders weren't paid, as such, they were just members of this community. Personally, I think the Waco folks had it right except they had the wrong, errant leader.

Your quote: "While on one hand communal property and redistribution of wealth was voluntary, scripture tells us that “all” of the believers in the church did this– meaning that it wasn’t exactly voluntary but a condition of being accepted into the group."

I believe the highlighted conclusion is a lie and it is just as implied. ALL did it because that was the natural course of the church at that time. Ananias and Sapphira weren't killed because they held back, that was their right. They were killed because they "lied" about it. Also the monies were distributed by need, not on general principles. Again, one can't take a house-based church scenario and imply that God was laying a foundation for government led socialism. Just because the church tried and failed doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried again. When the persecution comes and "churches" are outlawed, we will see the church again go back to the way it was in Acts out of necessity for survival.

 

[pom2014]

@Stanj

Paul also said you can divorce when the King said no.

Pauls opinions are too often taken as gospel.

This has led to other people ignoring our King.

I follow The King.

 

[StanJ]

@Stanj

Paul also said you can divorce when the King said no.

Pauls opinions are too often taken as gospel.

This has led to other people ignoring our King.

I follow The King.

POM, the normal is to support your assertions with scripture, and I don't know what scripture you refer to where Paul supports divorce over Jesus.
Maybe you can show us?

 

[River Jordan]

Hi River, I dispute your conjectures.

There's no conjecture. History is clear....when the US left care of the poor, disabled, and elderly to churches and charities, it didn't work. That's not conjecture, it's reality.

I do believe that if churches were led by leaders who were actually concerned about their congregations instead of the next building program, the people and the church would thrive.

And if billionaires would just give an extra 20% of their wealth to the poor, we wouldn't have poor people any more, but I don't see either happening any time soon.

You also must remember that these were house based churches with no plumbing, heating, electrical, etc. costs or expenses. The leaders weren't paid, as such, they were just members of this community. Personally, I think the Waco folks had it right except they had the wrong, errant leader.

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Your quote: "While on one hand communal property and redistribution of wealth was voluntary, scripture tells us that “all” of the believers in the church did this– meaning that it wasn’t exactly voluntary but a condition of being accepted into the group."

I believe the highlighted conclusion is a lie and it is just as implied. ALL did it because that was the natural course of the church at that time. Ananias and Sapphira weren't killed because they held back, that was their right. They were killed because they "lied" about it. Also the monies were distributed by need, not on general principles. Again, one can't take a house-based church scenario and imply that God was laying a foundation for government led socialism. Just because the church tried and failed doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried again. When the persecution comes and "churches" are outlawed, we will see the church again go back to the way it was in Acts out of necessity for survival.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Wormwood]

Im all for the new healthcare if it works. So far it doesn't seem to be. We had CoOpportunity...and great rates. The company went belly-up and now we are scrambling to find something. I agree something had to be done because pricing people out of insurance when they get old and need it most is immoral. Also, some of the pre-existing condition stuff was immoral as well. I don't have an answer. I don't think there is a simple solution. I sincerely believe both Republicans and Democrats (for the most part) are trying to help people. I don't think one side is pandering to the lazy while the other is pandering to the multi-millionaire as they are often portrayed.

 

[Dan57]

And if billionaires would just give an extra 20% of their wealth to the poor, we wouldn't have poor people any more, but I don't see either happening any time soon.

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Matthew 26:11).. And to date, he's been right.

Once that extra 20% of wealth was used up by the poor, they'd be poor again.. A lasting solution enables the poor to support themselves. Having billionaires invest that extra 20%, thereby creating jobs, would do more to help the poor than any temporary handout. jmo

 

[StanJ]

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Matthew 26:11).. And to date, he's been right.

Once that extra 20% of wealth was used up by the poor, they'd be poor again.. A lasting solution enables the poor to support themselves. Having billionaires invest that extra 20%, thereby creating jobs, would do more to help the poor than any temporary handout. jmo

Dan, taking scripture, as you do here, OUT of context doesn't justify your position. You should read vs 6-13 IN context to see what Jesus was conveying. It definitely wasn't that we should not worry about the poor because they'll always be here. So will prostitutes, as they were in Jesus' day.
Apparently you are advocating a certain moral and financial lifestyle in order to be eligible or qualified for healthcare?
Paul calls for equality in 2 Cor 8:13-15. Sadly many Christians seem ignore this, and what is even sadder, is that the world has recognized this need in a more responsive and practical way than the church has. I am utterly dismayed at this.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Stan, I'm sorry but your argument is a poor one. Your words: "Paul calls for equality in 2 Cor 8:13-15. Sadly many Christians seem ignore this, and what is even sadder, is that the world has recognized this need in a more responsive and practical way than the church has."

The problem here is, Paul is speaking of giving out of our abundance and not to burden ourselves with unnecessary giving. Being about 18 trillion in debt, the gov't has no abundance and won't have "extra" for several generations. Expecting the gov't to take on more debt it can't afford is a very poor example of good stewardship. Sorry, but God would NOT approve!

If you know someone who is having problems with needed healthcare then you, personally, should shoulder their financial responsibility, if it bothers you so much. If you're not ready to make that sacrifice then don't go whining and expecting everyone else to do it for you!

 

[River Jordan]

Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Matthew 26:11).. And to date, he's been right.

Once that extra 20% of wealth was used up by the poor, they'd be poor again.. A lasting solution enables the poor to support themselves. Having billionaires invest that extra 20%, thereby creating jobs, would do more to help the poor than any temporary handout. jmo

I wasn't advocating doing that, I was pointing out how "If people would just...." isn't a solution to anything. It's like saying "If people would just stop committing crimes, we could close all our jails and save a lot of money". It's called wishful thinking.

 

[StanJ]

Hi Stan, I'm sorry but your argument is a poor one. Your words: "Paul calls for equality in 2 Cor 8:13-15. Sadly many Christians seem ignore this, and what is even sadder, is that the world has recognized this need in a more responsive and practical way than the church has."

The problem here is, Paul is speaking of giving out of our abundance and not to burden ourselves with unnecessary giving. Being about 18 trillion in debt, the gov't has no abundance and won't have "extra" for several generations. Expecting the gov't to take on more debt it can't afford is a very poor example of good stewardship. Sorry, but God would NOT approve!

If you know someone who is having problems with needed healthcare then you, personally, should shoulder their financial responsibility, if it bothers you so much. If you're not ready to make that sacrifice then don't go whining and expecting everyone else to do it for you!

You seem to be confusing what Jesus said in Matt 13:13, but as Paul said, the goal is EQUALITY. That goal is in everything, not just giving. He was making a point about equality, which is why he said it twice.
Luke 6:38 is our standard in giving. My point is that the Word shows us it is socialistic in nature, which you have denied.
other scriptures are Matt 5:42, 6:2, and very specifically in Matt 19:21. Nowhere are we instructed to save up our abundance of money.
It's not a matter of expecting the government to do anything, it is a matter of having a government who understands and accepts social responsibilities and puts in place the ability for ALL citizens to be secure in their welfare.

 

[Trekson]

Stan, you speak like you think the government really cares for the people. Wake up! They don't give a darn who lives and dies. They have absolutely no sense of social responsibility! If they did, they never would have taken the social security monies from social security and left it nearly bankrupt. It's all about control!!! Have you seen the forms?! 99% of that info isn't necessary for medical care. They want to know who you are, what you think, what you believe, how you spend your money for the sole reason of finding out if you're one of those freaks who believes in freedom or worse the bible and put it all in their data banks so they know who to go after. If you're a known christian you're already on their watch list.

This government is a stone's throw away from being as anti-christ as Communist Russia was back in the 50's & 60's! Back in the 90's when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was asked who she thought home-grown terrorists were? One of her replies was "anyone who believes in the bible and especially it's end times prophecies."

From your tone, it seems like you vote democrat and the devil is counting on misinformed believers like you to serve up America's head on a platter. We all will be judged on our civic responsibilities and voting for the devil because they make a good sound bite about caring for the poor immigrants and the health of children is just foolishness cloaked in ignorance.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, you speak like you think the government really cares for the people. Wake up! They don't give a darn who lives and dies. They have absolutely no sense of social responsibility! If they did, they never would have taken the social security monies from social security and left it nearly bankrupt. It's all about control!!! Have you seen the forms?! 99% of that info isn't necessary for medical care. They want to know who you are, what you think, what you believe, how you spend your money for the sole reason of finding out if you're one of those freaks who believes in freedom or worse the bible and put it all in their data banks so they know who to go after. If you're a known christian you're already on their watch list.

This government is a stone's throw away from being as anti-christ as Communist Russia was back in the 50's & 60's! Back in the 90's when Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was asked who she thought home-grown terrorists were? One of her replies was "anyone who believes in the bible and especially it's end times prophecies."

From your tone, it seems like you vote democrat and the devil is counting on misinformed believers like you to serve up America's head on a platter. We all will be judged on our civic responsibilities and voting for the devil because they make a good sound bite about caring for the poor immigrants and the health of children is just foolishness cloaked in ignorance.

That is your opinion NOT demonstrated by facts in evidence. The government does the will of the people directed by the elected officials by those people. Your anti government rhetoric aside, the issue in this OP is UH and why or why not. Feel free to read the following on SS.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2013/01/07/social-security-rerun/

I'm Canadian Trekson...you should pay attention. The fact is UH works wherever it is instituted, despite your fallacious rhetoric.
We will be judged, for what we personally do and don't do, not for what party we support in our voting. You apparently have no idea what and why Jesus came to save us as individuals? He did not come to save any country that thinks they are morally superior. I'm afraid you have a bad case of "American Exceptionalism"
You should get that treated.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Stan, Your words: "The fact is UH works wherever it is instituted, despite your fallacious rhetoric."

I can't speak for Canada but your facts are facetious. In every European country that has it; it's been proven to be a political, bureaucratic, time-wasting nightmare for the average citizenry. Countless individuals have suffered substandard care and death while "waiting" for this glorious program to work as designed. The fact is, it doesn't and has failed miserably in the majority of nations that have implemented it. I question your news sources. Of course, if you have money, it works fine, not so much for the poor. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's not financially status based. It always has been and always will be.

Your words: "I'm afraid you have a bad case of "American Exceptionalism"

You're probably right and deservedly so. America has been the greatest nation that has ever existed. Just as God planned. However, because of misguided political and social exercises under the worst president this nation ever had, we have fallen a great distance in spirituality, the proven aspect of exceptionalism and the general freedoms that we have enjoyed. Obama didn't start our downfall, Clinton did and if the next Clinton gets re-elected, we will see what the whore of Babylon really looks like. We are miles from what USED to make us exceptional. But again, that is how God has designed us. We will fail in the same way Rome did, destroyed from within first before we meet our final fate as described in Rev. 18.

 

[StanJ]

Hi Stan, Your words: "The fact is UH works wherever it is instituted, despite your fallacious rhetoric."

I can't speak for Canada but your facts are facetious. In every European country that has it; it's been proven to be a political, bureaucratic, time-wasting nightmare for the average citizenry. Countless individuals have suffered substandard care and death while "waiting" for this glorious program to work as designed. The fact is, it doesn't and has failed miserably in the majority of nations that have implemented it. I question your news sources. Of course, if you have money, it works fine, not so much for the poor. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's not financially status based. It always has been and always will be.

Your words: "I'm afraid you have a bad case of "American Exceptionalism"

You're probably right and deservedly so. America has been the greatest nation that has ever existed. Just as God planned. However, because of misguided political and social exercises under the worst president this nation ever had, we have fallen a great distance in spirituality, the proven aspect of exceptionalism and the general freedoms that we have enjoyed. Obama didn't start our downfall, Clinton did and if the next Clinton gets re-elected, we will see what the whore of Babylon really looks like. We are miles from what USED to make us exceptional. But again, that is how God has designed us. We will fail in the same way Rome did, destroyed from within first before we meet our final fate as described in Rev. 18.

I am not being facetious at all, I am being factual, and I can't say the same about the fallacious assertions you keep making WITHOUT corroboration. I know the main reason is because there isn't any.
Your exaggerated verbiage aside, UH works, and the following Time article refutes your assertions here;
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html

Also for those who actually WANT facts, please read the following; http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Libraries/Committee_Docs/CaseForUHC.sflb.ashx

You sound more like a Mormon than a Christian so I won't bother addressing your issue on this OP. Again your problem clearly stems from thinking your political ideologue is God's will, when clearly it is not. God changes hearts, not countries. The law of sowing and reaping has always been in effect, but unless you can refute Paul and Jesus in their command to support the governments then you are on very shaky and unstable ground. The USA is not going to be saved, and the only nation God has ever promised to save is the nation of Israel. If you've already consumed the kool-aid I can't help you. I'll pray for you.

 

[Trekson]

"but unless you can refute Paul and Jesus in their command to support the governments then you are on very shaky and unstable ground. The USA is not going to be saved"

I don't believe there is any scripture telling us to "support" our governments, please post them but also note that obedience to authority and respect of law does NOT equal "support". If you read the last line of my post, you would see that I believe the USA will be totally destroyed.

 

[StanJ]

"but unless you can refute Paul and Jesus in their command to support the governments then you are on very shaky and unstable ground. The USA is not going to be saved"

I don't believe there is any scripture telling us to "support" our governments, please post them but also note that obedience to authority and respect of law does NOT equal "support". If you read the last line of my post, you would see that I believe the USA will be totally destroyed.

I guess that depends on whether you understand what the word "support" means, in all it's connotations.

Rom 13 would be a good start for you. Also Titus 3:1-2 and IN context what Jesus says in Matt 22 about paying taxes.

Again I have to correct you because Rev 18 is NOT about the USA, it's about the world system, which is capitalism. The U.S. does not have a monopoly on capitalism, remember the LOVE of money is the ROOT of ALL evil. Capitalism and greed is worldwide.

 

[Trekson]

Hi Stan, Your words: "Rom 13 would be a good start for you. Also Titus 3:1-2 and IN context what Jesus says in Matt 22 about paying taxes."

Regarding "support" for the gov't. Your words: "I guess that depends on whether you understand what the word "support" means, in all it's connotations."

Let's take a look at history. Do you really believe the 1st century christians "supported" Rome while being tortured and killed for their beliefs? Sure, they may have obeyed the laws (except who, what, where and when to worship), they probably paid taxes but do you really believe THAT AT ALL TIMES: Rom. 13:3 - "For rulers are not a terror to good works...", Do you think all the Russian Jews and Christians "supported" the Communist regime of Russia while their mass slaughter was going on (socialism run amok)? Do you think the christians in Nazi Germany should have "supported" Hitler? Do you think the modern day christians "support" their extinction in the Islamic countries they reside? Do you think the founders of this country were "supporting" Great Britian in their war against "taxation w/o representation"?

While I pay my taxes and obey the laws of the land, I do not "support" my gov't's choice to offer abortion on demand, nor do I support their attempts to disarm the populace. I don't "support" their irresponsible spending of tax dollars. I don't support arming our enemies. I don't support turning our backs on Israel. I don't support bad stewardship. I don't support their identification of bible-believing christians as "home-grown terrorists". Don't be foolish, we can heed the words of the bible w/o selling our souls to anti-christian gov'ts.

Your words: "Again I have to correct you because Rev 18 is NOT about the USA, it's about the world system, which is capitalism."

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard!

 

[StanJ]

We're not talking about history, we're talking about UH and how you try to justify it as being socialistic in nature based on your perception that Christians should/are not to support social well being.
It doesn't matter what mistakes were made in the past or what dictators and uncontrolled tyrants did in Jesus' day. The apostle Paul wrote the inspired word of God and he commanded us to support the government. You can't equivocate your way out of his words, despite your best efforts.
The issue is not the Roman Empire or the Russian or German states, and how they screwed up, it's about UH in the U.S. Try to focus and stay on topic please.
Agreeing and supporting are two different things, as is free speech and sedition. Be thankful you are in a country that doesn't have a thin line that differentiates between the two.
Governments are not nor will they ever be the anti-Christ, but a man will be, and many men are and have been. You've already named a few of them. Sadly you don't seem to know the difference.
Your OPINION about how the government spends your tax dollars is not the issue either, it's whether UH is good for ALL Americans. If you say it isn't then you go against what the Bible teaches overall about taking care of your fellow man, regardless if they are believers or not.

What is absurd, is someone who doesn't study the Revelation of Jesus Christ, yet fallaciously asserts what it says. I suggest your study it.