Why Obama’s (Socialistic) Plan Will Not Work
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
“What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
“The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the End of any Nation..
“You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Related posts:
Tags: political
political | Word Warrior | 
November 6, 2009 2:07 pm
AMEN AMEN AMEN to this! Does healthcare need changes? Yes. Are there people who are not getting the care they need? Yes. (Usually middle class who actually HAVE insurance, make too much to qualify for gov’t programs, but don’t make enough to pay OOP for all of things that many insurances exclude).
But this is not the way to do it.
Where is the tort reform?????
I love the second quote the best, and I love the picture. Thanks for making me smile. (:
could you give credit for these? I’d love to know who said these things, as they are all great points.
Abby,
I’m sorry that I don’t know. It was sent to me without credits.
I have this hanging on our school room bulletin board. I don’t know where I found it but the credit goes to Dr.Adrian Rogers,1931
adrian rogers was born in 1931. I read that the speach of which this come from was made in the 1960′s. I can’t remember when.
How interesting that none of these quotes applies to the health reform debate! No one is getting anything for free. At best (or at worst?), the government is helping to make it more affordable for people to purchase their own health insurance.
Even if we decided to go with a single payer model (like Canada) it STILL wouldn’t be “socialistic.” Socialism is where the government owns the means of production; in the health care sector, that would mean that all hospitals would be owned by the government, and doctors would be paid government salaries (like in the UK). That is light-years away from anything that could ever happen here in the US.
And as far as tort reform goes, malpractice insurance and litigation accounts for less than 1% of all health care costs. So go ahead, add it to the bill! It will make no perceptible difference in health insurance premiums, while making it incredibly difficult for families of those who have been killed or injured by medical negligence to recover for their bills.
Those that do not pay taxes would be getting health care for free-meaning the government would pay for it with money taken from taxpayers.
This is so wrong. My husband is self-employed and works very hard doing manual labor. So we can pay for others who do not work. I cannot see where this is right.
I love this quote- “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson
I enjoyed this post and thought the picture was great.
But it’s already true that the government pays for health care for the poor. It’s called Medicaid, and it’s been around since 1965. However, we have a pretty pathetic/nonexistent health care system for people who make too much money for Medicaid and not enough to afford health insurance on their own.
We pay 18% (nearly 1 out of every 5 dollars spent in this country!) of our GDP for our health care.
And that ridiculously expensive system (twice as expensive as governments in Europe that cover every single resident) is ranked #37 in the world in mortality and morbidity rates by the World Health Organization (below Greece, COLOMBIA, Chile, and Costa Rica). 45,000 people die needlessly in this country every year because they don’t have health insurance and can’t afford to see a doctor about a treatable condition. (see http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml)
Apathy on this issue literally kills people every day. It’s absolutely selfish and un-Christian not to act.
b,
I researched a little about why we have such a high mortality rate in this country and from what I found it is because all of those little bitty premature babies are included in the numbers in this country and not in the others. Any human that has a heartbeat is counted no matter how premature, even if surivival is not 24 hours. Our numbers also include those illegal aliens who cross for treatment and are too late to be saved. Those WHO numbers are skewed, IMHO.
b,
Also, do you not take issue with federal monies to subsidize abortions?
But why do we have such high rates of premature births? I think you would find this recent article interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/health/04infant.html?scp=1&sq=premature&st=cse
The US’s premature birth rate is twice as high as Sweden’s and is higher than in most European countries, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore. Why? In significant part because poor & minority women are not receiving necessary prenatal care, because they are uninsured and cannot afford it.
Well, that was interesting. It would appear that fertility treatments (transferring embryos)causing multiples is a big factor, as is the use of high-intervention care, not to mention lifetstyle choices. There are so many crisis pregnancy places everywhere, I find it hard to believe the poor have no access to care. One important question is whether they are willing to take advantage of it.
I lived in England from 1987-1990. Yes, everyone has access to healthcare under their government run healthcare system. Taxpayers fund it with steep taxes so it boils down to wether a person wants to pay the government extremely high taxes for healthcare or buy insurance yourself. In England if a treatment/surgery is non-life threatening then a patient has to wait until a “free” bed is available, can possibly take months. Our healthcare is the best in the world, it is the expense that is the problem and the insurance companies need to be held responsible.
I love the sheer christian virtue of those comments up above. Who knew that “consider the lilies, they toil not, neither do they spin…” was meant to be a condemnation of the working poor! And who knew that the author of the the loaves and the fishes, the guy who turned water into wine, would be opposed to caring for the poor by any means at all! LOL! I got that whole christian love thing so wrong!
aimai
I wouldn’t want free or subsidized “health care” if it meant I was more or less obligated to do what its providers saw fit with my body and my children’s bodies, including horrific and unnecessary vaccinations, to start with. The Bible’s “The borrower is servant to the lender” will end up applying in this situation, too, I believe, though it’s not a borrower/lender arrangement exactly.
If our health care is the best in the world, why are we so sick? Why do Brits live longer than we do? Why is an American baby more likely to die before the age of 12 months than a British baby is?
Patients often don’t get immediate treatment for non-life-threatening illness in the UK. True.
But in the US, some people don’t get treatment for real, LIFE-threatening disease, EVER. Or if they do, it’s emergency care that comes too late. And they die. Or are in unnecessary pain.
They pay higher taxes in the UK, true.
But in the UK, it is unheard of for a person to have to sell their home or go bankrupt to pay their medical bills. Because everyone is covered, doctors can focus on preventative care, which improves overall quality of life and saves money in the long run.
There are horror stories on both sides (i.e., long waits in England, incredibly high prices here in the US). But to really understand whether a system is good or not, we need to look at outcomes. And ours are quite poor, considering how wealthy we are as a nation! There are certain sectors of our society that are VERY sick (i.e., certain minority groups and the poor). This is a fundamental issue of justice.
Tricia, there is a fundamental Constitutional right in this country to refuse medical care for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason. You have now and will always have COMPLETE control over your body and the bodies of your children as long as they are under the age of 18. No health reform could or would ever change that. It’s just impossible, and there is very solid law to back that up, going back hundreds of years. You don’t need to be scared of the government doing anything to your body that you don’t want them to.
B: The reason we have a higher infant mortality rate also factors in how we treat and care for pregnancies and births. Our model of care is very different than the models of care who produce better results; countries that have similar models of care have similar rates of infant mortality. Unnecessary c-sections, for example, contribute to this more so than ‘lack of access’ to care. Anyone can go to an emergency room and receive necessary care…
Also, my family members in the industry tell me that tort reform would do a lot more than the overly optimistic numbers you have given. My midwife, for example, has been practicing since the 80′s. She had to TRIPLE her fee in the space of a year due to insurance premiums…litigation insurance. However, even if it was only 1%, that’s still thousands and thousands of dollars saved, and every little bit helps.
Pelosi has ensured that there will be no tort reform, however, it’s right in the bill.
Additionally, the proposed health care bill will only expand care to an additional 2% of people. It’s a huge, huge cost for not very much reform OR benefit. I’m all for insurance reform, and health care reform. I’d just like it to ACTUALLY do something good, and not be politicians paying their campaign favors off.
B: “Tricia, there is a fundamental Constitutional right in this country to refuse medical care for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason. You have now and will always have COMPLETE control over your body and the bodies of your children as long as they are under the age of 18. No health reform could or would ever change that. It’s just impossible, and there is very solid law to back that up, going back hundreds of years. You don’t need to be scared of the government doing anything to your body that you don’t want them to”
Uhhhh….http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
http://www.bookrags.com/news/parents-ordered-to-court-for-kids-moc/
I too think we need to hold health insurance companies responsible for some of this lack of care. I have a friend who has health insurance, her husband works full time and she works part time, her children are grown, and she has health insurance from her job. She has a degenerative jaw disease where she is in such pain that she has had to stop working (her husband has picked up her part-time job in addition to his full-time one) and is on valium, which keeps her drowsy.
The Mayo clinic will not see her until she comes with $45,000 in hand, and that is for only one side of her jaw! $90,000 for both sides! The insurance company will not pay. So, we have de-facto rationing in our country because of the insurance companies.
This is a tragic situation with my friend. She is about 40. Please pray for her.
I lived in England, and I was impressed with the health care, but yes, there are good and bad sides to it, like here, as another commenter has pointed out.
It seems, however, like this bill President Obama is wanting will not give us as good health care as they get in Britain. It seems like there will be almost none for the elderly.
Personally, I would like to see things left as they are, but I feel sorry for my friend with the jaw problem (she can only eat baby food because she can’t chew), who has slipped through the cracks. I mean, who has $90,000?? The community did a benefit and raised enough money (probably about $2,000 which is what these benefits usually net) to get them to Mayo, but that is a drop in the bucket.
Please pray for her and her situation.
I think everyone would agree that there needs to be some changes, but a such a broad sweeping bill that will change this country tremendously is not the best answer, IMHO. What about the ideas of allowng interstate competition between insurance companies. For instance, in some states your policy has to cover accupuncture, whether you want that or not! Or allowing people to just buy catastrophic type policies and pay for office visits out of pocket. Anything other than handing control to the gov’t- who obviously fails at such tasks!
Thank you, Mrs. Taft. Good points.
aimai,
Christianity is to embody charity, at which, I’ll admit, we often fail miserably. Nevertheless, the two–socialism and Christianity/charity, are not the same, and most people understand the blatant difference.
Socialism sounds nice in theory, and even does resemble certain aspects of what Christians are commanded. But it was never in the government’s power or sphere to cure a society from its material woes.
And taking from one to give to another is not charity–it’s stealing. It can only be love when it is given freely.
That man your referenced, Jesus Christ (I realize you usually don’t write His name when you comment), would have hated anything other than that.
B,
“You have now and will always have COMPLETE control over your body and the bodies of your children as long as they are under the age of 18…You don’t need to be scared of the government doing anything to your body that you don’t want them to.”
I would love to think that is true. However, schools already enforce mandatory vaccines, with few exceptions. This is not freedom.
Scarier still, if the “UN Convention of the Right of the Child” is passed, the government can override anything it deems is in the best interest of my child, even if I disagree–including medical intrusion/intervention.
I think Tricia has every reason to be concerned.
I thought our government already had the right to do what they want with our children, such as give them medical treatment if we don’t want it for them.
If the government gets to do everything for us, take anything from us to accomplish it and be the provider of anything we need, it becomes our god. That is what the people are seeking (not all, I understand); An all powerful, unending source of provision with no consequence, accountability or work. The problem is the consequence is at the hands of those who DO work and the accountability will only come about through revolution (not-violent) or the final judgment.
The major problem is us Christians. We are called to provide for the needs of others. Yet we have allowed the government to become what God has called us to be. And the government, striving to be the end all and be all, has gladly jumped in. We, the Christian community, have allowed this. We cannot justly bemoan the state of all encompassing government until we can honestly say we have helped our neighbor in need to the point of sacrifice. Not just for our glory, but to bring others to Christ. Until we have done what God has called us to do we are crying about the sliver while our sight is blinded by our own plank. This is very near to my heat, as you can tell. AND I sooooo oppose this bill.
The health care bill passed in the House last night. By 2 votes. Sneaky (ahem).
Anyone remember Katie Wernecke? She was the Texan girl removed from her family by CPS because her parents were refusind certain treatments for lymphomic cancer. Not only that, but the mom was arrested for ‘interfering’ and the three healthy brothers were also taken from the parents and placed into foster care. Oh yes, the government will choose for you.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44683
In England, the NHS is very popular. Yes, there are problems with it, but there is near consensus on the basic idea that people should be treated regardless of their ability to pay. I’m saying you should have the same systam as us – I think it’s very hard to take one model and apply it in countries with completely different systems of government. But nearly everyone over here is very glad of the NHS, and thanks God for it! It makes me proud to be British
I totally agree with you Kelly, taking from one and giving to another is not charity it is stealing. It can only be love when it is given freely.
Rachel isn’t your NHS billions in debt?
From this blog commentary:
http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/06/socialized-health-care-not-the-answer-and-why-didnt-we-elect-ron-paul-for-president.html
(Lori – June 25, 2009; 3:36 PM)
—here’s Britain dealt with –
“750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs.” As in, 122 day minimum if the hospital dosen’t want to lose funding.
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/23/health-care-around-the-world-great-britain/
– Gosh, I hope you don’t break a leg. Or get cancer. But if it’s cancer, they’ll deal with you. Oh, they’ll deal with you.
(from same article)
” Because of rationing, care might not be as easy to get as advertised. Terminally ill patients may be denied treatment.”
- Well, you know, you’re gonna die anyway. Why prolong the inevetable? Who needs mercy or hope? You cost too much.
But hey, 100% of them are insured. That’s helpful. If you could see a doctor.
Besides, even if it WEREN’T theft, even if it were a good idea, even if it worked as well as you let on, it doesen’t get around the fact that our badly indebted nation can NOT afford the over $800 Billion minimum estimated price tag.
Oh, I forgot to note that the last paragraph was my commentary today, not part of the quote.
One of our friends are very excited about the healthcare reform. He does not work, goes to the gym, lays out in the sun, and receives free insurance from the government. His wife works, under the table, cash (beauty industry). He is very happy, with our current government/healthcare reform. So, as you go off to work tomorrow, remember, that he is at home, driving a Mercedes, receiving food stamps/welfare/healthcare.
Kelly, are you sure about ‘mandatory’ vaccines for children in public school? I am under the awareness that you can get religious exemption for that.
I am curious….being many people in America who get free health care, and who dont ‘work’ are women, single moms, and most here do nott hink mothers should ‘work’ in the first place, how can we complain about helping them? I agree it is a sad state morally where the USA is today, but I dont view my money as being taken away…I can change my attitude and be FOR helping in the manner in which we currently are made to help. I know many single moms and am grateful they can have health care, food stamps, free child care. It isnt the ideal, but how much worse would they have to take on yet more jobs just to care for their children? The ones who are on it and COULD work and dont, I feel that is on THEIR conscience. I cant do everything to change the system.
I am on state health care, as well as my children. Many dont know that not all state health care is FREE. Mine isnt. I aslo had problems this past year that had I not had health care, would not have taken care of myself, and it could have turned into something worse. If that had happened, what would become of my children? They depend on me.
I also get $247 in food stamps a month. I dont like doing it, but it makes it a little more bearable. No one else was banging down my door with donations….the church fails, because the church is equally made up of carnality (myself included at times!)…what to do? I am going to stay home and NOT work as long as is possible. I am open to cleaning homes and am just now looking into jobs where I can be flexible for my childrens sake, but realize that every hour I am working, the balance at home is off, with no father, husband in the picture. Loss is apparent, and almost inescapable.
I gather most here are really speaking of those who take willful advantage. But remember the afflicted, the fatherless (today’s version of ‘fatherless’ might be the single moms!) and the widows. I know single moms having very tough times, and most DO work, but let me tell you-I wish they didnt-their kids and THEY really suffer….they cant take care of themselves as moms the way they should! It is very heartbreaking-these kids already have no father, lets not take away mom too! IMO the church or govt should allow moms to stay home as much as possible. Id rather pay economically for people in need, that socially and morally later….it snowballs
Thanks for listening.
Ooops!!! I meant to write “I’m NOT saying you should have the same system as us”!!!
Mary, I feel so saddened for your friend. This is an example of where i think collectively, the church could step in and do the most they can for this woman. Even if it was just enough for one sid eof her jaw, it would give her some light and encouragment for awhile. I was a member for years at an Independent Baptist church, of only like 100 members, and one day a man had sever plumbing problems, and that very day we took the collection, on the spot of his announcment of hardship, and the church collected $2,200, almost everything he needed. I just have a hard time believing churches could not raise even $90,000 for a sister….i really do. We have given even in the midst of hardship, and have alwys been blessed in return.
AM,
You’re right…there is no denying that there are very real needs and the government has met many of these needs where the church has failed to.
It’s a complicated issue, to be sure. But we still have to start at the right place, and work from there for solutions, not keep doing the pragmatic thing and creating a bigger problem.
Being in the right kind of church is a good starting point for vulnerable women and children. They are few and far between, but many churches still do understand their responsibility for taking care of others.
To find solutions to these problems though, we really have to go backward and fix a lot of others. This is why I’m constantly talking about how everything is connected, and how right thinking about our lives is so essential.
For example, families are first commanded to take care of its members, but sadly, this isn’t being taught and instead we embrace an autonomous lifestyle. Very few families even have relationships that would entertain taking care of its members in the event of a crisis.
To back up even further, we’ve got the problem of broken marriages, stemming from many different things–wrong approaches to finding mates in the first place, a careless commitment to covenant, etc.
Part of all that goes further into husbands and wives not being taught and equipped with biblical wisdom. Marriages that aren’t built on the principles of Scripture are likely to suffer.
And on and on…it’s not just a medical/insurance issue. There is so much to untangle. Once we step in the wrong direction, it’s a downward spiral. I’m witnessing it up close and personal in our own family, relatives who are up against a wall because of poor choices.
Very, very complicated. We must go backward. God has the answers, but we have to be willing to submit to them.
Perhaps shocking, I actually agree with you, to a tee. One must uravel the complex mess of ongoign sin since the beginning of time (almost) to rectify the problem and offer a sustaining solution. My issue comes in and differs form yours only because I am not so sure it is possible. The ‘ideal’ has sadly dissipated…I am more content with focusing on how to ‘live in these times’ than rectify everything simply because I know I cant. damage has been done, and while I am hopeful for 100% healing by faith, eventually teh end is coming, and previous sin form generationsa go still has its consequences. So confusing, and complex.
I certainly do agree that fatherless and widows should be cared for by family and the church…thena gain, there would not be so many fatherless if fathers wanted to be fathers, no premarital sex, etc….so I DO agree with you and likewise I think on these things often.
I remember Christ calling us to give sacrificially, however I don’t recall him demanding it from us at the point of a gun, threatening jail and fines for those who were deemed “uncharitable”. And I don’t see where he said give all the money to the productive, and hang everbody else out to dry, which is what the proposed health care reform bill means to do.
I agree that the insurance companies should be held to the agreements they make to cover their customers. Again, pray for our leaders, because that is one of the most power lobbies in the game. Wouldn’t it be interesting if they were as quick to make tv commercials like some of the larger auto insurers do – talking about how fast they pay claims, how much they will do and how far they will go to make you whole. That is born of competition, not fewer options, and certainly not a monolith of a provider like the US Government, which has proved itself incompetent to manage fraud (as high as 30% – thirty. percent. – it makes my head hurt) in the medical systems it already oversees.
Participating in abject fiscal irresponsibility is decidedly un-Christian, sin, in fact. The reason for doing it isn’t a justification, and moves us further away from truly charitable remedies.
These are some of the problems of the church. Here are a few more (not speaking to any one person here):
1. People might want churches to help more, but they are unwilling to tithe anywhere close to 10%. Where do they expect the money to buy food/medicine to come from?
2. Churches are blowing through hundreds of thousands up to millions of $ on building projects, not to mention programs.
3. The “social gospel” voices are gaining more followers in the voting public: they believe that since Jesus advocated charity then that means forcibly through the state – not privately OR through the church. I actually had a pastor who believed that the story of the good Samaratin was an example/support of state-welfare – not private charity.
4. MANY people want the help from the church, but are unwilling to submit to the teachings from the Bible – So they want to throw out the teachings of thrift and debt, but not about giving to the poor. They want to side-step teachings on divorce but want help when they choose to become single parents (I understand there are circumstances where divorce is biblicly allowable, I’m not speaking to those). They ignore the teaching on gleaning (where you actually have to put up some effort for the benefits, not just stand in line and sign a paper).
I highly recommend the book by Rev. George Grant, and the video “Charity that Works” with Rev. George Grant and author Gary North. These are highly biblical and effective – they involve lots of examples that were used successfully in Grant’s own Houston area church when that area was hard-pressed with unemployment, much worse than we see now.
The book is Bringing in the Sheaves by Rev. George Grant. Apparently using those triangle brackets earases words.
But Lori, many are forcibly divorced. Today, many spouses are leaving and divorcing and the other party is left to be abandoned. Rarely is divorce a mutual agreement…normally, one chooses it and the other is harmed. A single spouse should not be enslaved to working two jobs to make ends meets. Many spouses will also continue to live with abuse simply becasue they know it is easier than getting a job or tow and relying on others to watch their precious children.
AM – “many are forcibly divorced. Today, many spouses are leaving and divorcing and the other party is left to be abandoned.”
Lori – “I understand there are circumstances where divorce is biblicly allowable, I’m not speaking to those”
Yes, I saw that, but I fear the it isnt realized that this happens to not a few, BUT MANY as I stated.
In almost every divorce Ive heard of, whether by Christians or others, usually one person does not WANT the divorce. People who both want it seem more in the minority. Knowing this, what is the solution?
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Tim 5:8
“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.” 1 Cor 7:15
This person is basically a widow.
“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.
Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
But the younger widows refuse” – 1 Tim 5: 9-11
I doubt the means that she shouldn’t be helped, but she is not the church’s long-term responsibility, the church is not responsible for her long-term care.
Gleaning is a good option – like the widowed Ruth, she actually went into the fields to collect the grain for her food, the grain that wasn’t picked up by the fieldhands. She even had to work to grind and bake for herself. She wasn’t handed the loaves pre-made. That would have been acceptable, but certainly above and beyond. Begging was also allowable, but alms-giving was not state-enforced.
I don’t know the answers. But I would recommend that churches start holding abandoners in ecclesiastical punishment – public censure and withholding of communion even if they come from another church, until the offender has made restitution.
Encourage parental and church involvement in marriages. Encourage prenuptual agreements that uphold biblical precept where the local law does not.
Change the pagan, secular laws that protect abandoners.
Anyhow, like I said, Grant discusses this very well.
“Change the pagan, secular laws that protect abandoners.”
If I could put that in blinking neon, I would.
“MANY people want the help from the church, but are unwilling to submit to the teachings from the Bible … They want to side-step teachings on divorce but want help when they choose to become single parents…”
AM – “In almost every divorce Ive heard of, whether by Christians or others, usually one person does not WANT the divorce.” I see this too. But my own grandmother divorced my grandfather, then got a church to take care of the custody battle. It’s to situations like that I speak to.
So of course, churches also need to investigate the issue. My Grandmother claimed that Grandpa filed for divorce. I know another woman who claimed that her husband left her for a reckless lifestyle, only to mention a year or so later that she had just been throwing around the “D” word to manipulate him, (and got the papers drawn up to make it look serious), and it just backfired. Not exactly an example of a candidate for church support.
Yes, I know sometimes things are not as they seem, and perhaps even though both people do not want the divorce, both still contribute at times.
***But I would recommend that churches start holding abandoners in ecclesiastical punishment – public censure and withholding of communion even if they come from another church, until the offender has made restitution.***
Yup. It is so convenient and easy to just begin attending another church. Meet another mate. Get another job. Try a different school.
AM – “Yup. It is so convenient and easy to just begin attending another church. Meet another mate. Get another job. Try a different school.”
I *hate* that. It’s like people are disposable or something.
I’m not really commenting. Just trying to see if my computer works. I think Blogger is messing up.