[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Out of curiosity, would you see it fit for the government to be able to deny someone marraige based on their sexual orientation?

And what the unions of medical professionals do in making sure prices stay high isn't theft? What our nation is doing to others abroad isn't theft? In all honesty, a universal healthcare system can take advantage of me all it wants. Isn't the love of... money... the root of all evil?

So 5 wrongs make a right?

The fact that health care involves the compassion God commands us to bestow upon others. See Matthew 25:31-46. Note especially the last two verses.

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The Gospel according to jfahler03:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you paid your taxes so that the government could give me something to eat, I was thirsty and you watched as you property taxes were taken from you with no services in return so that the government could me something to drink, I was a stranger and you sent me to the taxpayer supported shelter, because no one could afford to fund the private ones anymore, 36I needed clothes and you sent my down to the welfare office so that I could go through the degrading process of applying for welfare so I would be clothed, I was sick and you sent me to the emergency room so I could get substandard care for free and then get sent to the social services health clinic. I was in prison and you you didn't come but I understood, after all, you have to work two jobs full time to pay for all the freeloaders in this society.


I don't think you understand the difference between coercion and persuasion.

Chris

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

The government doesn't take my money, I give them it by choosing to live in Canada and buy goods and use services. Income tax, gst and pst in some cases are rendered to local and federal governments and then distributed to various government services as defined by the legislature and parliament. The vast majority of people in my country understand the essential need for a publicly funded and open access system and thus no third party is taking money.

Really. And just what do you think will happen if you decide not to "contribute" to the system?

I don't need to run to the bible and ponder pages for hours to know people dieing of injury an disease is a problem. In a society with the means to heal them the fact that something as ridiculous as money should determine who gets treated is rediculous and immoral... it isn't respecting human life or even showing a shred of care for a fellow man. But hey atleast you can buy that porche.

So, you give up all your pay to do these things? Or is it just what your government tells you is enough? There's always more to be done, you know. If even one person is not getting the healthcare they deserve, it's your fault because you aren't giving enough money.

Chris

[Peatrical]

Really. And just what do you think will happen if you decide not to "contribute" to the system?

I'd probably be in trouble for tax evasion, either way that isn't happening. I believe in public health care and have no problem with a portion of my taxes going to healthcare.
As I said in Canada this isn't a huge problem, their are few opponents of public healthcare.
Besides nto all tax money goes to healthcare. For example the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan in it's current capacity is not something I support, yet my money still goes to defense spending, I can show my difference with that by voting for the MP that represents my beliefs. Those who don't like public healthcare can vote for a rep who doesn't either, however they'd be hard pressed to do so, and you'd be hard pressed to find many Canadians who want a total reversion to a private system.

So, you give up all your pay to do these things?

No, I give the amount of pay in my income tax bracket and whatever gst and pst I paid over the year. The exact distribution system I am not entirely familiar with, however i have enough money to go to school, eat food, continue my musical pursuits ect, as well as charities, so I do not give all my pay. I am not sure where you get this idea of universal care taking all my money.

Or is it just what your government tells you is enough?

My government takes what is necessary to pay for what is outlined in the budget, by voting for the mp of my choice in my constituency I am able to influence the government.

there's always more to be done, you know. If even one person is not getting the healthcare they deserve, it's your fault because you aren't giving enough money.

But I am giving my money, as outlined. I am not sure if everyone is getting the treatment they need as in a city of almost 1 million it is impossible to tell who is doing what at each moment, however I know the treatment is available regardless of money, and I have never heard of anyone dieing from denied or inadequate access to health care. You don't seem to understand how public healthcare works, with this assumption people give all their money. People give money to the government based on their tax bracket and it is then distributed.

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

No, I give the amount of pay in my income tax bracket and whatever gst and pst I paid over the year. The exact distribution system I am not entirely familiar with, however i have enough money to go to school, eat food, continue my musical pursuits ect, as well as charities, so I do not give all my pay. I am not sure where you get this idea of universal care taking all my money.

Here's where I am going with this:

You said:

No, I am saying people who don't think health care is an inalienable right value money over human life.

You are, to the extent that your government allows you to, valuing money over human life. If you really valued human life over money to the fullest extent possible, then you would give all your money to further that end. Instead, you only value human life to the extent that your government tells you you have to. (And as you say, you vote for the people you want, so really it is your decision as well.) So the difference between you and us Americans in determining the value of health care vis a vis mone is not one of kind but merely one of degree.

Chris

Chris

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

Those who value life over money.

This is an interesting claim coming from someone who is wasting time and money on the Internet that could be spent preventing people from dying?

More to the point, you're just arguing within the "rights" camp. You're trying to push the "standard of living" right over the "control over my own money" right. But you're still just arguing with an opponent who believes in rights. I'm challenging belief in rights at all, whether "standard of living" or "control over my own money" rights.

Finally, I certainly wouldn't put myself in the "greedy capitalist" column (few whose lives are devoted to teaching can), but I don't believe in rights. If someone were to tell me to shut up I would make no recourse to a right to free speech. If someone were to try to kill me I would make no claim of a right to life. I believe in gifts and privileges, of course, but I do not believe in rights. Hence your defense of "rights" -- i.e., that valuing life over money entails it -- runs into trouble.

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I do.

I suppose I can't argue with that one. You have a "right" to your own opinion, eh? But the individualistic, humanistic foundations of rights language can't stand.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Yeah... John Locke would be pretty PO'ed in my opinion.

Read all of his work, and you'll find that while his philosophy contains some humorous counter-examples, it is strongly anti-Christian, and unfortunately his politics cannot be neatly separated from that problem.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

The fact that health care involves the compassion God commands us to bestow upon others.

Government-sponsored health care has little to do with genuine compassion. It has to do with threatening people with violence unless they will pay others' medical bills. It has to do with refusing to gets our hands dirty and help people personally, electing rather to let an impersonal system take care of things. Matthew 25 says that you looked after somebody, not that you voted to force other people to give money to an impersonal organization that would give everyone else money. If you really want to show compassion, invite the homeless to eat at your dinner table every night.

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Government-sponsored health care has little to do with genuine compassion. It has to do with threatening people with violence unless they will pay others' medical bills. It has to do with refusing to gets our hands dirty and help people personally, electing rather to let an impersonal system take care of things. Matthew 25 says that you looked after somebody, not that you voted to force other people to give money to an impersonal organization that would give everyone else money. If you really want to show compassion, invite the homeless to eat at your dinner table every night.

You radical, you.

Chris

[jfahler03]

[quote=Chrysostom;2910309]...the individualistic, humanistic foundations of rights language can't stand.

Then we need to do away with the Constitution, as it's a product of this evil revolution we call the Enlightnment.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Read all of his work, and you'll find that while his philosophy contains some humorous counter-examples, it is strongly anti-Christian, and unfortunately his politics cannot be neatly separated from that problem.

Since when does the state need to be Christian? Paul and Jesus both explicity seperated the state from the church... and our system does the same.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Government-sponsored health care has little to do with genuine compassion. It has to do with threatening people with violence unless they will pay others' medical bills. It has to do with refusing to gets our hands dirty and help people personally, electing rather to let an impersonal system take care of things. Matthew 25 says that you looked after somebody, not that you voted to force other people to give money to an impersonal organization that would give everyone else money. If you really want to show compassion, invite the homeless to eat at your dinner table every night.

But shouldn't legislation be a reflection of... our values?

Again - I'll repeat what I said earlier: this is fine if you're willing to be consistent. I hope to never see anti-healthcare people rant against homosexual marraige on these message boards. The fact is that the government is the only organized institution able to alleviate poverty in our country - if it is willing. Unfortunately, it is not, and I see this as much more of a moral disaster than the government abstaining a roll as bedroom police (since it should be - according to every Christian).

Further, regardless of what the Bible says, why can't we expect our government to reflect our values as a society? Of course there was no standardized healthcare for the Israelites. At the same time, there weren't any electric guitars, either... so does this destroy the purpose of this forum? The fact is that both electric guitars and standardized healthcare can be put into service for God by helping His people... no matter what stage of life they're at - whether it be pre or postnatal care.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I suppose I can't argue with that one. You have a "right" to your own opinion, eh? But the individualistic, humanistic foundations of rights language can't stand.

What could possibly be individualistic about universal human rights?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Exactly, the argument for government-sponsored insurance is based entirely on rights/needs language. But who says we have rights?

The guys in charge make that decision. In a democracy that would be... us.

How can it be humane and charitable if it's impersonal and coerced? (by people with guns, nightsticks, and prisons!)

So then tithing should not be considered a charitable contribution because God demands it?

It's humane and charitable from the government that has elected to do so. I did not claim it was humane and charitable from the guy wh ohad to have his wages garnished because he was tax-dodging.

Are you saying that all who don't turn over their entire paychecks to pay for indigent healthcare are somehow immoral?

Jesus did have his deciples keep 90% of their income "because they had earned it", and certainly didn't give up something that would make his life uncomfortable (like, say, not hanging on a cross) for others.

Or is Jesus not a good example to follow? He does seem to have been pretty anti-capatalist with the money-changers. There was, after all, a demand that was being mret by businessmen.

But you still think it's immoral, right? Why should the government have the right to take your money and use it to pay for someone elses healthcare?

Why should the goverment have any rights at all? Answer that and you answer your question. If you don't think there's an answer to that then you are (definionally) an anarchist.

In the end, the goverment has the right because it gives itself the right and has the might to make that right happen. That's where all rights come from.

Or, for the more Christian angle, because all power is God ordained and all people should submit and render unto ceasar that which is ceasars.

Really. I'm surprised to find Christians questioning the right of the government to tax when the Bible addresses it so directly.

What about healthcare makes it an inalienable right? What scripture can you bring to bear that supports your assertion?

Give me scripture for any inalienable rights at all.

The government doesn't take my money

Wasn't Jesus's point that "it's not your money"?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Then we need to do away with the Constitution, as it's a product of this evil revolution we call the Enlightnment.

Exactly. No reason to trust the Enlightened State to be our Savior. Better hope lies in King Jesus.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Since when does the state need to be Christian? Paul and Jesus both explicity seperated the state from the church... and our system does the same.

Paul and Jesus both challenge Caesar's authority and offer a Christian politics to subvert Caesar's. Caesar's Gospel gets subverted by the Christ's. Caesar's Kingship is relativized similarly.

And you're the one who tried to apply Matthew 25 to the Enlightened nation-state -- surely you've already decided against the sacred/secular dichotomy? Is God the Creator and King of all, or just of "religious" things?

Originally Posted by jfahler03

But shouldn't legislation be a reflection of... our values?

So "we" value the State as our Messiah?

Because American Christians have abandoned the Church, they turn to the Enlightened State for a redemptive institution-community. They would rather trust the State to be mediator and reconciler than they would the Body of Christ -- certainly this cannot stand.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Again - I'll repeat what I said earlier: this is fine if you're willing to be consistent. I hope to never see anti-healthcare people rant against homosexual marraige on these message boards. The fact is that the government is the only organized institution able to alleviate poverty in our country - if it is willing.

I have no interest whatsoever in telling some police state to try to stamp out "homosexuality." Not only does that completely miss the real problems at stake today, but its purpose is to fulfill the mythology of America as God's Chosen Nation (by letting the "truly holy" people come to power, like the folks who don't care about the oppressed), which it certainly is not.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Unfortunately, it is not, and I see this as much more of a moral disaster than the government abstaining a roll as bedroom police (since it should be - according to every Christian).

According to American social conservatives, at least. But all American politics buys into the Enlightened mythology of the secular State, so I oppose its "conservative" factions just as much as its "liberal" factions.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Further, regardless of what the Bible says, why can't we expect our government to reflect our values as a society? Of course there was no standardized healthcare for the Israelites. At the same time, there weren't any electric guitars, either... so does this destroy the purpose of this forum? The fact is that both electric guitars and standardized healthcare can be put into service for God by helping His people... no matter what stage of life they're at - whether it be pre or postnatal care.

Why is the "us" in this paragraph America instead of the Church? Why do you identify more as an American than as a Christian? What if the suggestion of statist healthcare told us more that Christians believe in the work of the State over the work of Christ in the Church?

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

What could possibly be individualistic about universal human rights?

Because they're "mine."

[Chrysostom]

Jerry -- Your response came while I was typing mine, and now I'm off to bed. But I'll get back to you in the morning.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Because they're "mine."

Err... so I presume you also have problems with the statements "my body", "my car", "my name", etc.?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Or is Jesus not a good example to follow? He does seem to have been pretty anti-capatalist with the money-changers. There was, after all, a demand that was being mret by businessmen.

Jesus was pretty pro-capitalism. But he was against the merchants in the church. Seems he doesn't like the idea of profiting from a religion. He told a parable about the people receiving talents. The first two were good money managers and invested the money wisely, and the third hid it, earning not even interest. He was very mad at this person. Jesus wants people to use their money wisely and invest it (spell "capitalism"?).

In James 4:13: "13Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.""

There's also a verse about hard work:
"All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty." Proverbs 14:23

God wants us to earn livings for ourselves. He does not tell us that capitalism is bad, just that putting money as an idol before God is bad.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

Again - I'll repeat what I said earlier: this is fine if you're willing to be consistent. I hope to never see anti-healthcare people rant against homosexual marraige on these message boards. The fact is that the government is the only organized institution able to alleviate poverty in our country - if it is willing. Unfortunately, it is not, and I see this as much more of a moral disaster than the government abstaining a roll as bedroom police (since it should be - according to every Christian).

The government has no rights in anyones bedroom. They also should have no right to administer marriages (the church should). Marriages have a direct Christian origin and the state should not get involved. Homosexuality is against God's rules, and therefore, they cannot become engaged in the Godly union of marriage.

Originally Posted by Peatrical

But I am giving my money, as outlined. I am not sure if everyone is getting the treatment they need as in a city of almost 1 million it is impossible to tell who is doing what at each moment, however I know the treatment is available regardless of money, and I have never heard of anyone dieing from denied or inadequate access to health care. You don't seem to understand how public healthcare works, with this assumption people give all their money. People give money to the government based on their tax bracket and it is then distributed.

He was saying that instead of doing the usual complaining, maybe you should be doing more than the bare minimum. You pretend to be passionate about this cause, maybe you should give half your income to the a children's hospital. It's almost (but just almost, not like) like Ted Kennedy's support for every single tax, but except he goes to pay his own.

I also suppose you guys would like the rich who already pay a great majority of this country's taxes to pay for a $1.7 trillion/year health system? Unless everyone is willing to pay the $6000 a year in taxes, then this would be happening. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen. If I were rich I would leave. Its that simple. So . . . I guess you guys will just complain some more with no real argument or solution. Unless you guys actually have one that isn't the same as the one I suggested.

[Peatrical]

Marriages have a direct Christian origin and the state should not get involved.

This is highly debatable. Marriage is a word in the English language, Marriage has existed long before Christianity, or organized religion for that matter.

Homosexuality is against God's rules, and therefore, they cannot become engaged in the Godly union of marriage.

Not everyone follows the Christian idea of God, are you not forcing your beliefs on them by claiming ownership of a word?

Jesus was pretty pro-capitalism.

The early church didn't act capitalist...

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

and then this from MMathew 25: 36-40
35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

You pretend to be passionate about this cause, maybe you should give half your income to the a children's hospital.

I don't pretend, I support causes to the best my capacity, if you knew me you'd know that. Frankly giving more money directly via taxes to the Canadian system wont improve anything. I take part in the charity lotteries, and have volunteered for various things but I am not a doctor, a nurse, or an mt meaning I can not render any service to improve or cut down wait. Throwing money into the system at home is throwing money into the furnace.

I also suppose you guys would like the rich who already pay a great majority of this country's taxes to pay for a $1.7 trillion/year health system?

I am for higher and higher income tax brackets. When people are making 50 million a year, what's 5% more off?

He was saying that instead of doing the usual complaining, maybe you should be doing more than the bare minimum.

I give money to charities that bring health care to impovershed nations, and I pay my taxes to fund the established system here. There is no need to give more money to the system I am involved in than required as the system works fine and the taxes are adjusted for the system as it is.

So . . . I guess you guys will just complain some more with no real argument or solution.

America could model a dual system like Great Britain. Solution. America could model off of any Public system in Europe or Canada. Solution.

This is an interesting claim coming from someone who is wasting time and money on the Internet that could be spent preventing people from dying?

I never claimed to be perfect, I do what I can within my limits and I always feel I haven't done enough.

Government-sponsored health care has little to do with genuine compassion. It has to do with threatening people with violence unless they will pay others' medical bills. It has to do with refusing to gets our hands dirty and help people personally, electing rather to let an impersonal system take care of things.

I am going to disagree, the founders of health care saw a moral responsibility and followed through on it. I'm not a doctor, I can't help people personally but I can help them the best of my ability by paying for the means of their help to exist.

[Fandrew]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

The early church didn't act capitalist...

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

To me, this passage seems to advocate the sharing of resources/common welfare of people only within the church.

Your second passage, the one from Matthew, makes a much more direct charge to help the needy.