God's Politics

God's Politics


Video: Overriding Bush’s Veto Is Our Next Faith-Based Initiative (by Jim Wallis)

posted by God's Politics

Yesterday Jim stood with a group of religious leaders to challenge President Bush’s promised veto of a bill to expand health coverage for children. He told some of the story of Bush’s early days in office that he told here last week, asking what happened to his “compassionate” conservatism, and asking why Bush would veto a bill with broad bipartisan support, abandoning America’s children to a failing system. Bush’s veto, which came this morning at 10 a.m., is morally unacceptable, and overriding it will be our next “faith-based initiative.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(56)
post a comment
I and I

posted October 3, 2007 at 12:29 pm


Well, you libertarians and so-called compassionate conservatives that always seem to be posting in here have got your wish. All the arguments that you’ve made–about why many needy children shouldn’t get covered just because some “undeserving” middle-class children might–just show your true colors.
Fortunately, most of the public was behind expanding it, and could care less about your ideology. Wait until Election Day 2008; your party and some members of Congress that opposed it will pay dearly. It’s a new day coming.
Thank you , Jim, for for your leadership on this issue.



report abuse
 

Gowan

posted October 3, 2007 at 12:42 pm


I work with Families USA and I agree that this veto is morally unacceptable.
But am I encouraged to see that a broad, bipartisan coalition is forming in favor of overriding this veto and securing health care for millions of kids. For starters, we’ve produced an ad that we hope to get up on TV. It’s available at http://www.familiesusa.org if you’re interested in learning more.
Let’s get to work, and let’s get Congress to override this unfortunate veto.



report abuse
 

joekc

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm


Permit me to respectfully support President Bush’s veto of this bill. In my opinion, it is simply not the place of government to fund any kind of measure that moves us toward so-called “universal health care.”
It is, however, the place of the church to do so. And, I might suggest, if those who call ourselves “committed Christians” in the U.S. were giving the 10% minimum that our faith calls for (at various places, in both Old and New Testaments) instead of the rather pathetic 2-4% that polls show we give, we could fund this type of program ourselves – – a calling worthy of the true church. Just my thoughts. . .



report abuse
 

Mike Grello

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:19 pm


If it is not the governements place to fund universal health care then why did the US enforce it in the Marshall plan implemented after WWII to rebuild Europe?



report abuse
 

joekc

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:24 pm


Governments cannot fund and operate these types of systems over the long run, simly because government and the bureaucracies that are created by government to “run” these systems become self-absorbed, by their very nature, and spending then becomes directed toward the perpetuation of the bureaucracy, rather than toward the efficient operation of the system that is supposedly being benefited. Governments grow, like topsy. That is their nature, unless checked.
Please understand – – my main point is not primarily to attack government, however, but to point out that it is the proper role of the church of Jesus Christ to do these types of things, rather than the government.



report abuse
 

Mike Grello

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm


But the insurance companies that administer health care now have taken on many of the attributres of a governement, and exhibit all of the shortcomings that you outline. But THEY are not answeable to We The People.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:34 pm


joekc, welcome to the blog. You must be new, or you’d realize that every one of your arguments has been made here ad nauseum and debated. Like I said, you libertarians got your wish, so why even bother commenting further?
(I had to laugh a bit. Conservative Christians don’t even like to pay their fair share of taxes, and you’re telling them to tithe?)



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm


This whole video is an embarrassment –
This ‘fund’ in MN has gone to adults 80+ percent of the time.
Wallis should have never talked openly about a private conversation that he has with the Pres. Most people that have had any conversation with a Pres. for the most part have never made direct quotes about what the Pres. said to them.
By Wallis doing so – I am questioning that what he quoted was really said. By doing so, Wallis has total control of the conversation and therefore can say anything.
I wish Wallis would realize that there are other ways of achieving ones objective rather than the creation of another program that will in the long run be ineffective at best.
Best example – Carter and the Dept of Ed. We are loosing the war on educating our children and the rest of the world is passing us by. There are some ISD’s that are making it work but for the most part they are failing. In MN – Minneapolis and St Paul are not the biggest ISD’s in the state anymore. It is ISD 11 – Anoka – Hennepin as the people from the inner city are either leaving so to educate their children in the burbs or sending them to private schools.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

joekc

posted October 3, 2007 at 1:58 pm


Repeating the truth does not make it any less truthful.
And I am not a libertarian – – I am as apolitical as it is possible to get, and still live in this world. At the age of 62, i can honestly say that I have only voted in any secular election once – – I voted to give the current President Bush another term, and I regret having broken my perfect record. I am a nonresistant pacifist by faith and philosophy, and I will continually contend that Jesus has called us to be our brother’s keeper, not the government. The government cannot do it, even a government that has many committed Christians working in it. But we, individually as followers of Christ, and as the church, we can, if we want to. And yes, it is the calling of the church to do it, through our giving and our administration of that giving.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted October 3, 2007 at 2:05 pm


What do we want?
Free government health care for upper-middle class kids!
When do we want it?
NOW!
Whether they realize it or not, Sojourners is flirting with Limousine Liberalism here. Doing something “for the children” is useful as rhetorical device, but it’s not a substitute for real understanding of issues.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 3, 2007 at 2:15 pm


“But we, individually as followers of Christ, and as the church, we can, if we want to. And yes, it is the calling of the church to do it, through our giving and our administration of that giving.”
In the meantime, while the Christians are trying to pull it together and follow God’s word, let’s at least let the government provide a few safety nets. Have you taken your antigovernment ideas to any poor churches lately? I think your distinctions come from a position of relative privilege. Go to struggling communities, and as much as they rightly believe in self-reliance and hard work, they still appreciate that the government provides some kind of help in hard times.
As for the efficiency of government-run health care, Medicare has for more than 60 years run far more efficiently than any major HMO; compare the respective overheads of 2% versus 25-30%. The new prescription-drug component is the exception–it unfortunately wastes lots of money throwing subsidies at insurance corporations–but you can blame your President for that.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted October 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm


The unfortunate part of all of this is that the Democratic Congress probably could have worked out a compromise to cover the remaining low-income children while at the same time reducing or even eliminating many of the problems to which the Administration objected (tell states it’s for children and children only, for example). Or the Democrats could have added something to the bill to make it more palatable to Bush (perhaps give them one of the free market reforms they want such as expanded HSAs or something). But both sides thought there was a political advantage to fighting on this one. Bush probably saw it as a chance to rehash the Hillarycare victory of the 90s while Democrats probably saw it as a way to make Republicans look evil because they don’t support health care for low-income children.
Inside, the Democrats are probably cheering the veto. It’s a great political victory for them. Meanwhile, the children continue to go without insurance.



report abuse
 

Alexander

posted October 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm


Dear joekc,
Having attended church my entire life — including hearing money appeals every week — I’m a little skeptical that pointing out the paucity of support is going to fix the problem of funding state-wide children’s health.
When exactly did it become the province of the church to actually run (and fund) society, rather than our elected leaders. In fact, part of the rise of Western civilization lies it the separation of expertise: churches can advocate publicly but should they be running state health care.
On the issue that society, not churches, should actually administrate health programs for millions of the economically disadvantaged, it seems that those who prefer a relatively socially-disengaged faith and those who prefer a politically active (but not administrative) Christianity could find common cause. What’s crucial here is making sure that our elected leaders and faith leaders understand the difference between caring for the least of these and the chimera of socialism.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted October 3, 2007 at 3:16 pm


What gets under my skin about Wallis’ stance on this and making it a moral issue is that he neglects to mention that this whole debate is merely about how much to expand SCHIP. Bush proposed expanding SCHIP by 20% over five years. Congress proposed a larger expansion, which Wallis supported. It’s not as if Bush was proposing to eliminate SCHIP.
I’m sure there are Democrats who would have wanted to expand SCHIP even beyond what Congress passed, but Wallis didn’t criticize the Democrats who cut that funding down to what passed Congress. Why, I wonder? If it’s a moral issue that children have access to health care, why isn’t Wallis’ rhetoric also directed at Democrats who left funding at what passed the House instead of covering all children or all Americans?
Wallis’ involvement in this seems more about politics and power than morals and policy.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 3, 2007 at 3:23 pm


“Meanwhile, the children continue to go without insurance.”
Point of clarification here, Eric. Congress has passed a continuing resolution to keep funding in place until SCHIP is reauthorized.
But more to your point, the Dems’ bill was not unreasonable at all and there would have been no reason to modify it in the ways that you suggested. Even conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley championed it as it was, remember? Why would THEY have been in it for the politics?



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 3, 2007 at 3:28 pm


“Bush proposed expanding SCHIP by 20% over five years…It’s not as if Bush was proposing to eliminate SCHIP.”
The Bush administration has been underfunding important social programs for years. Health care costs are rising much faster than inflation. Bush’s proposal was inadequate. If you want to see the math go to http://www.cbpp.org; they’ve done the heavy work of estimating the real need.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 3, 2007 at 4:04 pm


Bush is the lame duck , look at the piling on . This video is all over the left’s blogs , from Huffington Post and to the other smear merchants .
Wallis makes good political points , look at all the corruption in government and the out of control spending , and Bush takes this issue to finally make a stand on economic principles ?
The folks in Congress are going with public opinion , not what is good for the country or the kids . You can tell that by their positions on other issues .



report abuse
 

Zach Roberts

posted October 3, 2007 at 4:19 pm


I am tired of Christians saying that this is the Church’s role and not the government’s. Aside from the church abdicating itself into obsolescence on caring for the poor (thanks to individualism and crack-pot eschatology), this is a human issue.
How a Christian can justify billions of tax-payer dollars for funding the killing machine of the U.S. military and be opposed to health-care benefits for poor children has to be the highest feat of intellectual gymnastics ever practiced. I am amazed and saddened by that.



report abuse
 

joekc

posted October 3, 2007 at 4:35 pm


Zach, you and I agree on the s’nfulness (my word, not yours) of funding the killing machine. But that doesn’t at all justify the church turning over the things that Jesus has called us to do, to the government. On that day, when all those people were out there in the country listening to Him, and His disciples tried to get Him to send them all home, because they were hungry, He did not say: “Quick!! Call the local Roman authority; tell them to send over some sandwiches.” Rather, He said, “You feed them.” It is not taking anything out of context here to translate that command to us, in 2007, with regard to providing children’s health care. It is our call, not the government’s. We can do it. All we have to do is decide to do it, and decide to quit passing the buck to a top-heavy government that doesnt have an interest in it, except for the funding that can eventually be used to pad the pockets of bureaucrats. Sorry for the cynicism, but government is what it is – – and the church is not stepping up.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 3, 2007 at 5:02 pm


“It is, however, the place of the church to do so. And, I might suggest, if those who call ourselves “committed Christians” in the U.S. were giving the 10% minimum that our faith calls for…”
See, there it is again!
Apparently, that’s a big IF.
Hey joekc,
On a previous thread I pointed out that there are a lot of people here in New Orleans suffering. I’ve been out doing some volunteer work here. I’ll extend the same invitation to you.
(http://www).commongroundrelief.org/
(http://)fleurdevieclinic.org/2006/06/how_to_donate.html
(http://www).no-hunger.org/
(http://www).neworleansmusiciansclinic.org/donations.php
(http://www).emergencycommunities.org/help.htm
Talk the talk?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 3, 2007 at 5:57 pm


“Inside, the Democrats are probably cheering the veto. It’s a great political victory for them. Meanwhile, the children continue to go without insurance.”
Which was exactly the point. They wanted to block Bush’s move to a blended, privatized solution, and so they took money from his program to pay for something with children in the title. Naturally, Wallis strips their talking points straight from the Bible.



report abuse
 

Tim Stidham

posted October 3, 2007 at 5:59 pm


I can’t understand the sour tone of the first reponse posted. You act like a total “insider” who is free to silence critics. If this bill becomes the litmus test for compassion, the movement may crumble.
Wallis did not tell the whole story. Now he won’t admit it. I don’t care if Grassley & Hatch supported it. They aren’t perfect. I supported it and sent the email to Bush. Now I regret it. I’m not libertarian. I don’t think the church can do it. I think the government has a key role, but its not to extend to $83,000 households. That is not justice.
The church is to take care of widows and orphans, but there would still be many unreached if every church did this dilligently. I think this bill would actually undermine our objective. why not a few tweaks before sending it on? It makes no sense. The rhetoric is getting divisive here. Please don’t push so hard for one view that everyone in the middle is alienated. What exactly is “your party” who is going to “pay dearly” in the next election? I thought this was a bipartisan group that wanted to come together. I am new and I’m losing heart pretty quickly.
I’m open to anyone who can help clue me in.



report abuse
 

bren

posted October 3, 2007 at 6:34 pm


Those of you who believe that it is not the role of government to ensure that all American children have the right to receive medical care need to explain to people like me who are completely baffled by your position what you think the role of government should be. To suggest that poor children should go through life without healthcare because covering children’s medical needs could, perhaps, possibly lead to–oh horrors!–“universal health care” is in my view criminal! Because you’re afraid of what it might lead to, you’re willing to sacrifice the children? And this is somehow a Christian response? At least I assume you believe it’s a Christian response because you are posting your position on this website.
Did you read the parts in the Bible that remind us to care for the poor? Isn’t it better to develop a system to meet the needs of all poor children in the country than to have one church or other organization do x in one part of the country, another do abc in another part of the country?



report abuse
 

joekc

posted October 3, 2007 at 7:31 pm


bren,
No, I dont think it necessarily is. And the reason is easily studied in the history of our government itself, since the days of the “new deal” and beyond. Government has a tendency to grow; people dont necessarily implement programs with that goal in mind, but that is always the way it works out. Government grows. Keeping a program like health care for the children of a specific small community (or a thousand communities) within the administrative confines of that particular community would work very well; we already do it with community food banks (and by the way, neuro_nurse, I won’t make New Orleans; I spend my retirement days at the local food pantry here in my Indiana community) – and these community operations work very well. Once again – – if we were willing to step up, as Christians, and take care of the children at the local level, there would be no debate here; there would be no perceived need for “universal health care.”



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 3, 2007 at 7:42 pm


Bren said
ensure that all American children have the right to receive medical care need to explain to people like me who are completely baffled by your position
Are you so out of touch with understanding the other side you do not understand the belief that government’s job is not to provide rights , but to protect our rights . Is your question from a Constitutional perspective , because you are just wrong from that . On a moral belief , I can understand that , but not your ignorance of the other side . Where have you been all your life ?
Have you never read why the other side believes in what it does ? Do you honestly believe that liberals are nicer people then conservatives ?
If Healthcare is a God Given right please explain that to me ? The left believes nothing is said about abortion in the Bible ,so this is a stretch , we now have a God Given Right to provide medical care that includes abortions in our country .
That is a basic difference between MANY on the left and the right . I understand your position , I often don’t agree with it , but I understand it . Health Care is a good thing , so the government should provide it . Kids have no choice to who they are born to , so we should provide them with it . Not a Constitutional arguement , but I believe a compassionate one .
Many people who happen to believe that we are all better off in the LONG run , when we keep government out of our daily lives is a common conservative theme . In the long run the medical care system will be worse off is what many on the conservative side believe , they may be wrong , but definitely not the immorality the Pharisees proclaim .
In public education, at one time there was nothing wrong with prayers asking for help and Thanks to God in Public Education , Now it seen as detrimental , unfair , promoting one view on another . So Honoring God is ended publically because we do not want to offend anyone .
Yet the same folks use the word Evangelical like it is a plague .
Honoring God from Bibical understanding is basic education . But of course parents can do that at home , and in the government schools ,Nope / Lets see , Day Care is becoming the next target for the Socialized Bible thumpers, of course Noah’s Ark and such will no longer be allowed to be sung about , examples of Christ healing the sick will be replaced with the Jim Wallis crowd telling us that can’t be used in our public run daycares , we have to speak to examples of government sponsored doctors healing our sick .
The more secular we become , the more people see it your way . I have my opinion on that , but perhaps you need to read up on Barry Goldwater or listen to some Reagan Speeches , I don’t expect your to agree , but your not understanding shows a lack of having read on the points of the debates.
At least you may learn to understand and respect another opinion , otherwise I guess we can be just immoral .



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 3, 2007 at 7:46 pm


Talk the talk?
Posted by: neuro_nurse
You are setting up a higher then thou arguement here , Thank God Christ never asked us to measure up to HIm so we could have an opinion . He gave that ability to us for free.
Bren said
ensure that all American children have the right to receive medical care need to explain to people like me who are completely baffled by your position
Are you so out of touch with understanding the other side you do not understand the belief that government’s job is not to provide rights , but to protect our rights . Is your question from a Constitutional perspective , because you are just wrong from that . On a moral belief , I can understand that , but not your ignorance of the other side . Where have you been all your life ?
Have you never read why the other side believes in what it does ? Do you honestly believe that liberals are nicer people then conservatives ?
If Healthcare is a God Given right please explain that to me ? The left believes nothing is said about abortion in the Bible ,so this is a stretch , we now have a God Given Right to provide medical care that includes abortions in our country .
That is a basic difference between MANY on the left and the right . I understand your position , I often don’t agree with it , but I understand it . Health Care is a good thing , so the government should provide it . Kids have no choice to who they are born to , so we should provide them with it . Not a Constitutional arguement , but I believe a compassionate one .
Many people who happen to believe that we are all better off in the LONG run , when we keep government out of our daily lives is a common conservative theme . In the long run the medical care system will be worse off is what many on the conservative side believe , they may be wrong , but definitely not the immorality the Pharisees proclaim .
In public education, at one time there was nothing wrong with prayers asking for help and Thanks to God in Public Education , Now it seen as detrimental , unfair , promoting one view on another . So Honoring God is ended publically because we do not want to offend anyone .
Yet the same folks use the word Evangelical like it is a plague .
Honoring God from Bibical understanding is basic education . But of course parents can do that at home , and in the government schools ,Nope / Lets see , Day Care is becoming the next target for the Socialized Bible thumpers, of course Noah’s Ark and such will no longer be allowed to be sung about , examples of Christ healing the sick will be replaced with the Jim Wallis crowd telling us that can’t be used in our public run daycares , we have to speak to examples of government sponsored doctors healing our sick .
The more secular we become , the more people see it your way . I have my opinion on that , but perhaps you need to read up on Barry Goldwater or listen to some Reagan Speeches , I don’t expect your to agree , but your not understanding shows a lack of having read on the points of the debates.
At least you may learn to understand and respect another opinion , otherwise I guess we can be just immoral .



report abuse
 

Kay Shively

posted October 3, 2007 at 8:35 pm


For you conservatives who are so afraid of “government health insurance,” I just have 2 questions: 1) Have you ever heard of Medicare? (not to mention that members of Congress all seem to do fairly well on a government plan) and 2) Have you noticed what a “terrific” job the private sector companies have done, creating massive wealth for themselves at the same time creating a system no one else can afford?



report abuse
 

bren

posted October 3, 2007 at 8:44 pm


It’s easy for me to understand Mick’s position but then, I’m a grown-up who has the luxury of being able to get medical help when I need it. My question is this: why should children’s lives be at stake because there is an ideological difference between grown-ups? If the church isn’t stepping up to the plate–and there is no sign that the church plans to do this–do we simply forget about, ignore, the children who live in poverty? I don’t think so.
I believe that both education and health care are human rights. We seem to believe that when we explain why we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan–why then do we not believe that when it comes to American children? Aren’t you embarrassed that in the U.S., a country that has so much, so many children live in poverty, don’t get adequate education, don’t get medical care? I am.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 3, 2007 at 8:51 pm


“You are setting up a higher then thou arguement here , Thank God Christ never asked us to measure up to HIm so we could have an opinion .”
“Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” Matthew 5:15-16
“…that they may see your good deeds,” id est, that they may see that you walk the walk, not just talk the talk.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm


Besides, Christ is the one person we, as people who call ourselves Christians, ARE supposed to live up to.
I only have an opinion because I have eyes that are open.
I’m really not sorry if that offends you.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted October 3, 2007 at 9:34 pm


Joeke,
“…if those who call ourselves “committed Christians” in the U.S. were giving the 10% minimum that our faith calls for (at various places, in both Old and New Testaments) instead of the rather pathetic 2-4% that polls show we give, we could fund this type of program ourselves – – a calling worthy of the true church. Just my thoughts…”.
I agree with the concept that we should contribute more… but not to expenses for church buildings… we should be helping those who are “hungry”, “thirsty”, “naked”, etc.
My guess is that the contributions we make to churches go for just that.. churches… buildings… not for assistance to persons who we should be helping who suffer from extreme poverty…
Mike Hayes



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm


“My guess is that the contributions we make to churches go for just that.. churches… buildings… not for assistance to persons who we should be helping who suffer from extreme poverty.”
Skip the middleman.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted October 3, 2007 at 10:21 pm


The whole “it’s not the government’s role, it’s the Church’s” thing is simply hot air. The OT employs plenty of safeguards in favor of the poor that Lassiez-Faire Capitalists would choke on. Imagine trying to pass legislation that debts be forgiven every 7 years. You’d have the finance industry fighting that tooth & nail! Or how about prohibiting farmers from picking their orchards clean so the homeless can have the leftovers? Finally -and this does the death blow to Christian Republicanism as a whole- the main reason why God destroyed Sodom was not sharing with the poor.
That’s a secular society being told to do it or die folks, and no amount of prosperity-doctrine revisionism can change that fact.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 3, 2007 at 10:47 pm


For the record.
Bush is asking for an increase in the SCHIP funding – just not as big as some in congress are pushing for at this time. Bush would like 5B and they want 30+B. Typical of liberals in DC – if you don’t want to increase anything as much as they do – they call it a cut.
This much you will hear on FOX NEWS. “We report – You decide”.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 3, 2007 at 11:30 pm


I only have an opinion because I have eyes that are open.
I’m really not sorry if that offends you.
Posted by: neuro_nurse
It did not offend me , you were looking foolish and somewhat like a Pharisee . I often hear liberals pervert the view you can only be pro life if you adopt a child ,or you can only have an opinion on the war if you have a child fighting in one .
Having an opinion on a government spending program , especially one that does not solve the problem and only spends more then the other one being debated , requires personally being involved helping the sick . Michael Moore and you speak the same language , my mistake . I thought you were passionate but fair . I am sorry if that offends you , but I felt I needed to say it .



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 3, 2007 at 11:58 pm


“..requires personally being involved helping the sick .”
Maybe you missed something Mick, I’m a nurse, I volunteer (that means working without receiving pay) helping the sick in New Orleans.
You’re correct that Jesus was very critical of the Pharisees as hypocrites, but if I’m out there serving the Lord by getting my hands dirty, how does that make me a hypocrite? If I’m donating my money to charities that help the poor, how am I a hypocrite? If I’m going to school for a public health degree so that I can work to improve the health of people in Africa (and spending my own money on tuition, housing, books, and everything else in the process), how on earth does that make me the hypocrite?
Please show me the courtesy of not telling me how I think, what I believe, and what I support. You don’t know me. You make asinine assumptions based on my identification as a liberal.
All I’ve heard you do is argue that I’m wrong. What are you doing, other than running your mouth?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 4, 2007 at 12:06 am


“Skip the middleman.”
No, the church is not a middleman. You’re better than that.
“Finally -and this does the death blow to Christian Republicanism as a whole- the main reason why God destroyed Sodom was not sharing with the poor.”
Well, they stole possessions from the people. You could just as easily say this is the death knell for governmental redistribution, because the government is using to hard-earned money of its workers to pay for their own programs. I reject both arguments, for the record.
“Have you noticed what a “terrific” job the private sector companies have done, creating massive wealth for themselves at the same time creating a system no one else can afford?”
No one else? Most people have insurance. I agree that changes are necessary, but profit margins remain a small part of the financial success of an industry that employs millions of people and makes the lionshare of it’s money by investing premiums.



report abuse
 

bren

posted October 4, 2007 at 3:17 am


kevin, moderatelad, I don’t know where you get your information. If you truly believe that profit margins are a small part of the financial success of the health industry, I have a bridge to sell you. Remember, there are lots of people with health insurance–who go bankrupt trying to pay the parts that the insurance company refuses to cover. Remember the woman in SICKO who was denied coverage for an ambulance because it hadn’t been pre-authorized while she was unconscious?
Meanwhile, here’s a short quote from today’s San Francisco Chronicle:
“The president just sent a request to Congress for $189 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. By contrast, the expanded children’s health program would cost $60 billion over five years.”
$189 billion for one year for killing but it’s too expensive to pay $60 billion over five years for children’s health. How sick is that?



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 4, 2007 at 5:10 am


All I’ve heard you do is argue that I’m wrong. What are you doing, other than running your mouth?
Posted by: neuro_nurse
I am pointing out becaue you are dedicated , and love the Lord , you have no right to accuse another of who you do not of doing anything else .
In other words , stop running your mouth , for smoeone who make such abig deal of doing work for Christ ,
you sure make a big deal about how righteous you are .
Your reward will be in heaven , don’t expect it on this web site . Especially do not consider your works to make your opinions on politics appear great , the Pharisees were great at making them appear more important in front of us poor folks who could bearly keep our families above the ater line , And by the way , your works are nothing to brag about according to the scriptures , in fact it warns that you do not have anythijng to boast about .
They are filthy rags . Of course if you believe in another Gospel , thats fine and normal on this blog .
Your not running your mouth , your just running .



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 4, 2007 at 8:03 am


Posted by: bren | October 4, 2007 3:17 AM
Fine – we can get National Health Care and see what the do to us. If they handle it like the have SS we are all going to die early. My sister lives in England and has their national insurance. 18 month wait for surgery on a ‘womans problem’ that would have been handled here in the states within weeks. She had to fight with her doctor to do the surgery the way she wanted it done rather than just slicing her open and removing the whole thing. National Health Care means the lowest level of care. We also run the risk of loosing developing any new drugs because NHC will adversely effect them. Name the last new drug that came out of Canada or England.
83k – we are now going to encourage companies to drop their coverage that they offer their employees and make them go on the gov’t system.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 4, 2007 at 9:23 am


Let’s get real here. The SCHIP bill does NOT cover families making up to $83,000 per year. It allows the President to authorize, at state request, covering families up to that amount. The President does not have to authorize. In fact, New York applied for such a waiver and was denied it by the Bush administration. So the President was being disingenuous at his gig in Lancaster yesterday when he said it covers families making up to $83,000. But truth was never one of his strong points.
Grassley and Hatch both held press conferences pointing this out.
So does this finally settle this discussion about the bill covering families with middle-class incomes? Can we put that red herring to rest?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted October 4, 2007 at 9:25 am


Posted by: bren | October 4, 2007 3:17 AM
I believe that there are several areas that we could reduce the cost of Health Care without allowing Hilary and Co take it over and screw it up. Competition would be one way. If people were allowed to customize their policy and look for the best rate it would cause the insurers to be more competitive on their rates. But again the requirement of 3rd party pay established by the Dem’s in the last century has limited that ability or at least made it a non-issue.
What about getting the Lawyers out – talk about a bunch a parasites in the Medical Industry. I believe they add a min. of 20% of the cost to our insurance because of their stupid law suits.
Allow people to die 3 months prior to when they do. The figures that I have heard recently are that 80% of our costs are from people over 80. Help them to understand lying there in a vegetative state hocked up to all kinds of machines to sustain their lives is not living. Allow them to die peacefully and with dignity. I believe that this could save a min of 25% of our costs.
Establish ‘Medical Reimbursement Groups’ to cover the avg. medical needs of individuals and families and then they could purchase a ‘Major Medical’ to cover the catastrophic events in the live of their families. The reimbursements could have a cap of 50k and by that time the insurance could kick in.
This would be compassionate medical care and affordable for most of the people in the nation.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

I and I

posted October 4, 2007 at 9:39 am


Earlier I referenced a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study on the cost and benefit of the SCHIP expansion, available at http://www.cbpp.org. I should have also mentioned Families USA. Let’s look at the actual hard numbers before we argue, so we can base our discussion on fact rather than hunch and soundbites.
(As an aside, I see a staff person from FamUSA posted here early on, 2nd post. Didn’t see it before. Gowan, whoever you are, you probably know one of my co-workers–I work for a state-level policy org that interacts with Families USA on a regular basis. I appreciate Washington analysts taking time to participate in these discussions–thanks.)



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 4, 2007 at 10:34 am


“kevin, moderatelad, I don’t know where you get your information. If you truly believe that profit margins are a small part of the financial success of the health industry, I have a bridge to sell you. ”
I didn’t say they were a small part. You twisted my phrase into something you could argue with. I said that insurance companies (generally) make most of their money by investing premiums. For several years during the tech boom, insurance premiums actually had no margin for this reason.
“Remember the woman in SICKO who was denied coverage for an ambulance because it hadn’t been pre-authorized while she was unconscious?”
A nationalized system would have to meet budget goals. To you think authorizations and such will be a piece of cake if government takes over? Have you been to the DMV?



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 4, 2007 at 11:57 am


Mick Sheldon,
I have told you before I do not appreciate your drawing unintended inferences from my posts. Your stereotype of the ‘average liberal’ or ‘all liberals’ is inaccurate, and one which absolutely does not represent who I am as an individual, a Christian, or whatever label you feel inclined to attach to me.
There are others who post here who attack liberals as a group, but you are the one who tries, unsuccessfully, to attack me based on your assumptions of who I am. I’ve had my differences with a lot of people on this blog, both conservatives and liberals, but I cannot recall anyone else other than you drawing such absurd conclusions about how I live my life, what I believe, or how I practice my faith.
My post to which you initially responded was in regard to how the church, the body of Christ, in this country SHOULD care for those in need in this country. As far as I can see, that’s just talk with little or no action. Your response was a personal attack.
I apologize for responding in kind.
I live in New Orleans, I work here, I volunteer here, I’ve also lived, worked, and volunteered in Africa, so I see the suffering and it’s real to me. I hear a lot of talk about what should be done in New Orleans and the developing world, but two years after Katrina, people are still suffering.
Pardon me if I call all of that TALK hypocrisy.
To my knowledge, Bill Gates is not a Christian (in fact, every time I had to get used to a new operating system I swore he was the Antichrist), but he is doing much more than just talk, and now I admire him for that. He’s setting an example for others, including our government and our churches, to follow.
As for my “filthy rags”; contrary to popular belief among some Protestants, Catholics DO NOT believe in salvation through works, but I’m not going to hide my service to the Lord from you or the rest of the world. Jesus did not hide his works. As Christians, we are his hands in this world; we are to set an example for others. It’s a shame that some non-Christians are doing a better job of serving people in need better than we are.
Should those who serve others for the Lord just keep our mouths shut? For whose sake? Yours?
Finally, I do not see myself as being the least bit righteous. I am a sinner, the worst of all.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 4, 2007 at 1:14 pm


“the church is not a middleman.” kevin s.
That depends on your definition of ‘church.’ I was refering to Mike Hayes’ definition, rather than the Body of Christ.



report abuse
 

nlindster

posted October 4, 2007 at 5:49 pm


The church cannot provide what the government can provide in part due to the fact that churches don’t have the authority to require donations, the government can tax us and therefore should help supply basic needs, including guaranteed health care.



report abuse
 

atup

posted October 4, 2007 at 6:02 pm


As everyone debates policy, ideology and politics, I am facing the prospect of my child losing health care coverage because of the veto of this bill. This is not theoretical for me, it’s real. I’m a single working mother. I don’t receive any support from the child’s father. I’ve been working since I was 12 years old and don’t make anything close to $83K per year…far from it. The CHP program allows my child to get quality medical care. But with the changes to the current program recently required by President Bush and now the veto, I am very, very afraid she’ll lose medical coverage. Because of our financial situation, we’re above the poverty line, but can’t afford insurance. I really don’t know what we’ll do.



report abuse
 

bren

posted October 5, 2007 at 3:48 am


I am grateful for atup’s post and its reminder that our discussion of health care coverage for children is about real human children and their anxious parent(s), who don’t have the luxury of engaging in the theoretical discussion that has occurred among some posters. For some, it seems important to determine first whether the proposed changes go down the slippery slope to liberalism or whether we have found the perfect alternative before we make a change.
Most distressing to me is the way in which people who disagree with what they identify as something liberal feel the need not merely to dissent from or try to rebut the viewpoints but actually to belittle them. Where does this seething vitriol come from? Why is it not possible simply to disagree?



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 6, 2007 at 3:53 pm


“Where does this seething vitriol come from? Why is it not possible simply to disagree?”
Reading Washington’s Farewell Address , he puts on some detailed warnings on the danger of politics and what you are talking to here .
Bren I can assure you I get the same nasties here , sterotped , ridiculed for being an Evangelcial , linked to racism etc .
One point I find excellently explained by Washington is the gotcha last mentalisty politics promote , even if say the liberal is saying something good , the conservative remembers how three weeks ago they were in opposite positions and the liberal attacked him wrongly .
I am sure you being insulted is real , but what do we all do when we feel our integrity or personal beliefs with a Loving and all Forgiving
God is made to look igornant and misplaced .
If you re call you advocated a video , I rented it on your recommendation . You never acknowledged it when I came back and told you so . What , not important because I was a conservative ?
It caused me to ask my son who had somewhat recently been through Boot Camp about was portrayed in the video .
Want to make a step towards reconcilaition , we can have a conversation based in our belief that we are brothers in Jesus Christ first , that we are brothers . Not to convince each other how wrong we are , but to share why we see what we see ? Forget about the political aspectsof our views , share wht you think , I will share what you think . I bet we would find more in common then you believe . And we would see better when people attacked you or me because of that relationship we formed , instead of only seeing when right attacks left or as left attacks right . Political relationships are very shallow from my experience.
Your turn Bren .



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 7, 2007 at 4:04 pm


neuro_nurse said
My post to which you initially responded was in regard to how the church, the body of Christ, in this country SHOULD care for those in need in this country.
Me
Wrong , you were speaking to how a political party should respond . You are doing first hand what the Body of Christ should be doing . Using your opinion as a Christian of how to make government provide better care for people is not rhe Body of Christ doing it . . You have a political opinion , Your assumption the Body of Christ is doing the good is wrong if done by government . Government works in our free society is done without bloodshed or a police state forcing people . You are promoting a civic action paid for by non Christians , Christians , Jews , Pagans , etc to give up what they earned for what you believe would be the greater good . I can agree with some of your beliefs politically , and some I may disagree . But government doing things is we as Americans collectively doing them , not the Body of Christ . That is a major difference in our “opinions” .
Interesting , you seem to be able to attack people as a whole and feel justified with those in agroup being lumped into those who do not care for the poor as much as you do , And are surprised if you are called on it ?
Then when called on it it becomes a personal attack . Well being called on who has a valid opinion and who does not is quite important . I suggest to you , that people in this country do not need your or my approval to have an opinion , and especially when it comes to tax dollars . People who have put on uniforms have made that possible , not you or me . they get stereotyped quite nefgatively in many circles , called traitors and liars and such .
If it is insulting to you I find your opinion any more relevant politically then someone who does not do their ministry work in New Orleans , that is really your personal problem . You had a chance to explain what it was like down there , instead you used it as a hammer over the heads of people who disagreed with you . I would have been quite interested in what you were doing , and I suggest for future discussions if you wish to have them , use that tact . Pretend Evangelical Christians are as concerned about the poor as you are , instead of being uncaring as some seem to promote based on political views .
You
I apologize for responding in kind.
Me
Well your getting better , the last time you stated if you had offended me that was too bad for me .
You
I live in New Orleans, I work here, I volunteer here, I’ve also lived, worked, and volunteered in Africa, so I see the suffering and it’s real to me.
Me
Thank God for people like you ! And I mean that .
I don’t like your politics or your assumptions of those who disagree with you .
You
I hear a lot of talk about what should be done in New Orleans and the developing world, but two years after Katrina, people are still suffering.Pardon me if I call all of that TALK hypocrisy.
Me
No I call that self righteousness when you ridicule another’s opinion and commitment to Christianity based on your activitism .
Bill Gates does much more then I , you or many others for the poor , and as you pointed out , you don’t think he is a Christian . Is his opinion of more value then yours ? Are you a hypocrit if he disagrees with you and agrees with me ?
I support groups that promote the Healing and Saving Power of the Gospel and help the poor . So if it gets a little complicated hypocrits like me , its because we anser to Christ , Not nancy Pelosi or Jim Wallis ideas of morality . To me they appear quite situational , as I said before , if someone wants to give more government aid then Wallis , is he not immoral then according to his standards , are you now the hypocrit if they were in charge of all the good things ou were doing down In NO and wanted to give more money and aid then you ? . Can we top your good works , and make all those who don’t want to give more then you and Wallis the immoral ones .
You base your morality on things I don’t understand .
You
As for my “filthy rags”; contrary to popular belief among some Protestants, Catholics DO NOT believe in salvation through works,
Me
I rather not get into denominational dos and do nots.
You
As Christians, we are his hands in this world; we are to set an example for others. It’s a shame that some non-Christians are doing a better job of serving people in need better than we are.
ME
Huh ? Who is we ?
This is a political web site . You recently criticized the Mormon Faith on another blog. Pointed out to me all the red states have terrible STD rates . One of the most ardent liberal bloggers here is not a Christian , but yet for some reason treating different religions with respect seems to occur only if it likened to a liberal position . What is up with you , I am not attacking Catholics ? The pro life group around here is Catholic , talk about dedication and such . Helping the ones who need help , they walk their talk . Would get quite upset with you as a Catholic promoting democrats , but hey , thats their opinion .
YOU
Should those who serve others for the Lord just keep our mouths shut? For whose sake? Yours?
Yikes , what are you talking about . You went from one extreme to another ? Only those with your experience and giving examples have valid opinions to you saying others should shut their mouths . Its almost like from agressor to victim in the blink of an eye .
You
Finally, I do not see myself as being the least bit righteous. I am a sinner, the worst of all.
ME
Welcome to the club . Now we are even . But I think I may be a worst sinner then you . I am from NJ . ;o)
And hopefully you got that out of you . I do ask for your forgiveness , I think you are an admirable person .
Politically I think your off your rocker , but at least you chose a party that seems to at least offer some hope . I have no political party it appears , Bill Clinton looks good to me these days .
Love In Christ , I am sorry if I got under your skin .
Mick



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted October 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm


Mick,
Again, you presume inferences from what I wrote that were not intended, implicitly or explicitly. You’re telling me what I think and what I meant by what I said, and again, you are wrong.
On that basis alone, it’s not worth discussing with you.
Have the last word if you need it.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 7, 2007 at 6:06 pm


One final comment;
No one speaks for me, no individual or no organization – not Jim Wallis, not Nancy Pelosi, not Hillary Clinton, not the ACLU, not even the American Nursing Association – no one speaks for me. I am 45 years old, certainly old enough to speak for myself. I may agree with a person or an organization on specific issues, but never – I repeat never will I agree with any individual or any organization completely – not even my wife, who happens to be a conservative, evangelist Christian. Neither my participation on this blog nor my identification as a liberal – or whatever I chose to call myself – does not give anyone the right to tell me what I believe.
You may freely disagree with me on what ever you like, but you may NOT – repeatedly – misrepresent my statements, my beliefs, my values, or my politics – which you don’t know in the first place.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted October 8, 2007 at 6:00 am


Bren said
Most distressing to me is the way in which people who disagree with what they identify as something liberal feel the need not merely to dissent from or try to rebut the viewpoints but actually to belittle them
But just above this comment you said
To suggest that poor children should go through life without healthcare because covering children’s medical needs could, perhaps, possibly lead to–oh horrors!–“universal health care” is in my view criminal!
Me
So which is it , a dialogue or attacking another view. Neuro won’t belittle your comments because he agrees with your political views , and someone else will see how ridiculuis you appear but because they agree with me that socialized medicine may cause care to actually decrease because of it . Its up to you to see how stupid you were here . That perhaps your view is valid , but your debate tactics just suck .
Otherwise nothing changes .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted October 8, 2007 at 10:22 am


“Where does this seething vitriol come from?”
You called us criminals who are willing to sacrifice children, and then asked where from came vitriol? I’m not one to play “tone police” here, but come on…



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted October 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm


“Its up to you to see how stupid you were here . That perhaps your view is valid , but your debate tactics just suck .”
That, in a nutshell, says it all.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.