This topic is locked, no replies allowed. Inaccurate or out-of-date info may be present.

  • Print

Topic: Republican + Christian = ???  (Read 3473 times)

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3106 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Republican + Christian = ???
« on: September 28, 2011, 01:32:22 pm »
Before I go into this, let me just say that I am NOT trying to push a political agenda here nor am I really trying to bash on religion. I post this just because I find this to be a very blunt contradiction with plenty of possibilities to promote debate and discussions. To sum it up-



An example would be the healthcare issues in the country and how the Tea Partiers are constantly bashing on the proposed reform. Thoughts/opinions plz.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 01:38:58 pm by Falconer02 »

trucktina

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2011, 01:40:50 pm »
Is that a quote from the Colbert Report? If so, I can't take your thread seriously. That's a comedy show.

That said, TEA partiers aren't bashing on any reforms. We don't have the money to do all of the things the Dems want to do. Why are they against Medicare and Social Security reform?

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3106 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2011, 01:49:31 pm »
Quote
Is that a quote from the Colbert Report? If so, I can't take your thread seriously. That's a comedy show.

Comedy or not, the point still stands. Only look at the words if that helps.

hawkeye3210

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2639 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 102x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2011, 02:27:11 pm »
I don't find it a contradiction unless you want to claim that government and their huge deficit classifies them as "needy".

macy332

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2011, 07:52:33 pm »
If anyone thinks that America isn't "needy" and desperate... they will wake up soon and realize their denial.  That is a psychological political poster trying to disturb the subsconscious of the subsconscious Christians. The poster is actually fairly humorous.

jaymz462

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1379 (since 2007)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2011, 08:14:20 pm »
Is that a quote from the Colbert Report? If so, I can't take your thread seriously. That's a comedy show.

That said, TEA partiers aren't bashing on any reforms. We don't have the money to do all of the things the Dems want to do. Why are they against Medicare and Social Security reform?

We'd have a lot more money to spend if we weren't blowing up all kinds of countries.

Abrupt

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Silver Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1034 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 1x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2011, 09:54:13 pm »
You cannot mandate charity and consider it as such.  Forced charity is slavery and corruption at its most insidious level.  Christians have long since helped the needy and made us the most giving country in the world.  To force someone to be charitable is nothing like what Jesus taught.

Regarding the health care issue.  It is slavery and an abuse of power.  The entire concept is foolish and why people cannot so readily reason this is beyond me.  Basically people are expecting 'insurance' that always pays out more than it costs and everyone with any basic reasoning can understanding what is wrong with such an idea.  Insurance is a guaranteed bad bet (and this doesn't just hold true for blackjack) and to be considered a luxury, not a necessity and certainly not a right.  Pre-existing conditions?  Yeah let me get auto insurance after I have an accident, that sounds reasonable.

I am a Christian and am strongly against the Affordable health care act.  I can give more charity and have it be more effective without the government stealing it from me and wasting it on condoms and abortions and *bleep*.  While I am sympathetic to those who are in bad health, I don't feel guilty about it and I certainly wouldn't submit myself or my progeny to slavery for these peoples sake.

Only a fool would trade freedom for safety.
There are only 10 types of people in the world:  those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3106 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2011, 10:16:27 pm »
Quote
You cannot mandate charity and consider it as such.  Forced charity is slavery and corruption at its most insidious level.  Christians have long since helped the needy and made us the most giving country in the world.  To force someone to be charitable is nothing like what Jesus taught.

I concur to an extent. But with this reasoning, why should we pay for police and fire protection? Certainly if the poor can get protection from police and fires, then why not healthcare?

Quote
Regarding the health care issue.  It is slavery and an abuse of power.  The entire concept is foolish and why people cannot so readily reason this is beyond me.  Basically people are expecting 'insurance' that always pays out more than it costs and everyone with any basic reasoning can understanding what is wrong with such an idea.  Insurance is a guaranteed bad bet (and this doesn't just hold true for blackjack) and to be considered a luxury, not a necessity and certainly not a right.  Pre-existing conditions?  Yeah let me get auto insurance after I have an accident, that sounds reasonable.

Why do most well-developed countries use similar plans then?

Quote
I am a Christian and am strongly against the Affordable health care act.  I can give more charity and have it be more effective without the government stealing it from me and wasting it on condoms and abortions and *bleep*.  While I am sympathetic to those who are in bad health, I don't feel guilty about it and I certainly wouldn't submit myself or my progeny to slavery for these peoples sake.

I really think you went off of the deep end here, but I'm way too tired to explain atm.

Quote
Only a fool would trade freedom for safety.

Agreed. But I'd like to see those who are sick, injured, or dying enjoy those freedoms for as long as they can. And that's why I'm extremely torn on the issue.

lvstephanie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2198 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 97x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2011, 10:01:19 am »
A couple of quote you may find interesting in this discussion:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. - God (10th Commandment)

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. - PJ O'Rourke

With the first quote, too often this envy towards what some other person has, fuels resentment and this idea that things are not "fair". Many of the social programs are merely government sanctioned redistribution of wealth schemes in order to give those without the same things as those that have. Again, forced charity is not true charity... Jesus went among the poor and helped with what he could do; however he did not force others into doing the same. True charity is an expression of love: you see your fellow man suffering and out of love for that person, you are willing to give something of yourself to help that person. The forced "charity" of the government telling us we need to pay taxes to help the poor or else risk imprisonment is an expression of power and fear. The government is maintaining control over the tax-payers and using fear of imprisonment to collect money from us. It is also used as a way to control the poor... it is like telling the poor, "We are the ones giving you this money, so just remember that on election day". Once you have a society where over half of the people are receiving money from the remaining portion of the country, you are guaranteeing the ones in power giving the money away will maintain their power on the backs of the most productive in our society. A country built like that will never flourish but rather will stagnate or even perish.

Human desire is limitless. If you give a person something merely because they exist, they will accept that and then want more. However because it is given to them, they never learn how to provide for themselves. Additionally, if someone puts their own blood, sweat, and tears into accomplishing something, they will value that much more than something that was just given to them. Unfortunately too many in society are relying on the government to give them a handout instead of using their personal freedoms to cover for their own responsibilities. We enjoy the freedom to eat whatever we want and exercise as little as we desire, yet we then turn around and expect the government (or the "rich") to cover our health-care costs for the heart-disease, diabetes, etc. caused by our poor choices. So to truly fix our health care system, we either need a dictatorial government that restricts every aspect of our lives in order to ensure that everyone makes the best decisions to not only benefit ourselves, but also the entire country; or we need to allow people to make their own choices and suffer from the consequences. If a person doesn't want to pay for health insurance when they are young, you can either force them into getting insurance or paying a fine (or getting sent to jail); or you can allow that person to make that decision and let them roll with the dice (which may mean having to pay higher costs after they find out they have cancer and it is not established as a pre-existing condition). This can likewise be extended to every aspect of our lives. You may be an author and like writing novels, but the government's labor department knows that there is a surplus of authors currently, and so it would be more beneficial for you to work as a carpenter instead. A communist government would make you become the carpenter, whereas in a free society you can become a "starving artist" if you so desire.

Falconer02

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 3106 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 90x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2011, 10:40:49 am »
Very well spoken, Stephanie. I think on the other hand though, the reform will help fight a lot of fraudulent behavior and unfairness among insurance companies. I myself could not find insurance for over 3 years due to a small pre-existing condition that I already had under control. Though I completely agree with you on the power and fear scale, at the same time I feel non-regulation of healthcare has created a lot of power and fear-inducing among the companies providing it to the people ($ caps, rising premiums, technicalities so they don't have to pay even after the person has been paying it for years w/o any major sicknesses...I've seen it all with random people I know) so let's look at what the reform will do-

- Health Insurers cannot deny children health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. A ban on the discrimination in adults will take effect in 2014.

- Businesses with fewer than 50 employees will get tax credits covering up to 50% of employee premiums.

- Seniors will get a rebate to fill the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare drug coverage, which severely limits prescription medication coverage expenditures over $2,700. As of next year, 50 percent of the donut hole will be filled.

- The cut-off age for young adults to continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance rises to the age 27.

- Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance an individual can have will be banned. Annual caps will be limited, and banned in 2014.

- A temporary high-risk pool will be set up to cover adults with pre-existing conditions. Health care exchanges will eliminate the program in 2014.

-  New plans must cover checkups and other preventative care without co-pays. All plans will be affected by 2018

- Insurance companies can no longer cut someone when he or she gets sick.

- Insurers must now reveal how much money is spent on overhead.

- Any new plan must now implement an appeals process for coverage determinations and claims.

- This tax will impose a ten percent tax on indoor tanning services. This tax, which replaced the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery, would be effective for services on or after July 1, 2010.

- New screening procedures will be implemented to help eliminate health insurance fraud and waste.

- Medicare payment protections will be extended to small rural hospitals and other health care facilities that have a small number of Medicare patients.

- Non-profit Blue Cross organizations will be required to maintain a medical loss ratio -- money spent on procedures over money incoming -- of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.

- Chain restaurants will be required to provide a "nutrient content disclosure statement" alongside their items. Expect to see calories listed both on in-store and drive-through menus of fast-food restaurants sometime soon.

- The bill establishes a temporary program for companies that provide early retiree health benefits for those ages 55‐64 in order to help reduce the often-expensive cost of that coverage.

- The Secretary of Health and Human Services will set up a new Web site to make it easy for Americans in any state to seek out affordable health insurance options The site will also include helpful information for small businesses

( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/21/health-care-bill-passes-l_n_507714.html#s75228&title=Better_Consumer_Information )

Now considering we pay for fire and police protection already, is this really that different? Granted communities can have independently sponsored police and fire protection, usually cities pay these things through taxes even if the police force is corrupt (I live near Chicago, so...). That's why I'm so torn on the issue-- it just seems like a lose-lose situation either way we go. On one hand we can have the freedom to attempt to pay into a form of a coercive monopoly, and on the other we can force everyone to pay into a pot to ensure that these companies play fair and help everyone out (+ possible gov't corruption). I'm also worried that more people will be going to doctors more frequently and thus it being difficult to go see one in general.

Understand that I'm not arguing against you-- I think you've brought up some extremely good points. I'm just displaying the other side of the argument to get your opinion.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 10:44:48 am by Falconer02 »

AISHASHOFUL

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2011, 12:14:56 pm »
Is that a quote from the Colbert Report?

just because this quote was made by a comedian, foes not make the quote any less true or powerful. The point of comedians is to bring to light issues in a very funny way. And yes Colbert did say this I watched the video for myself. It was just downright funny! But anyways what he said actually lines up with the bible. I just think its sad that a comedian had to say this first. And thumbs up to you for posting this, I just put this on my wall last night.  ;D

lvstephanie

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Gold Member
  • ********
  • Posts: 2198 (since 2009)
  • Thanked: 97x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2011, 08:21:51 am »
A few comments to Falconer02's response:

First, Stephanie is my last name. Don't worry, I get this a lot... E-mails at work "Steph, can you take a look at these figures?", mail from companies (esp. colleges when I was looking, where they'd send me 2 sets of everything), etc (I esp got a kick out of spam that I'd used to get: some for penile enlargement and some for breast enhancement)  ;D

But seriously, I think you were presenting a little bit of a false dilemma: either we have freedom and stick with the current situation, or we yield some of that freedom by completely overhauling the system. There is a middle ground that does take on certain points as more generally agreed issues that should be fixed without having to completely dismantle the current system.

I do think there should be more regulations on insurance companies in terms of when they can drop people. The whole premise of insurance is that you are essentially making a wager with the insurance company that sometime in your life you will be afflicted with a costly condition, and the insurance company is betting that, for example, instead  of suffering through several years of cancer, you'll die with a quick, less costly heart attack. As such, if you have been making the wager all along (so to speak) the insurance company shouldn't be able to back out of it when things turn against them. Thus, if you have been paying into an insurance plan and then get hit with some costly disease, the insurance company should not be allowed to drop you... They lost the bet, and now have to pay up.

If you do have a system like that, then you have to also ensure that the playing field is legit. First of all, the person shouldn't be able to win if they aren't betting. If a person decides not to get health insurance, then it should be completely up to them to pay for their medical needs. Also I think it would be completely fair for insurance companies to link coverage amounts or premium levels to how long a person has been insured and their age. A person in their 20s is more likely to lose against the insurance company each year in that the amounts in premiums they are paying is probably more than the amount of coverage actually used. However, all of that money gained while the person is in their 20s by the insurance company is a little extra "padding" to soften the blow of the enormous expense a person thinks they'll incur later in life, say in their 70s. Thus if a person hedges their bets by not paying into the system until later in life when they are more likely to need the coverage, then the insurance company should likewise be allowed to charge more for that increased risk, either in higher premiums or by limiting coverage payouts.

Also, insurance companies should be allowed to exclude people for pre-existing conditions. Just like you can't submit a claim to your car's insurance for something that happened before you got coverage, you shouldn't be able to submit a health claim for something that you had prior to coverage. A roulette dealer will cry "All bets are off" when the ball starts to slow down and the number it will pick becomes more determined; if you get diagnosed for a condition before you get coverage, sorry but "all bets are off". I think there could be an argument made for children with pre-existing conditions. Perhaps if a child is not covered under a parent's plan, then the child is free of "pre-existing condition" clauses until they become, say, 3 years old. Or perhaps a rule that states that a person with individual coverage would have to switch to a family coverage during their pregnancy in order for the child to be excluded from the pre-existing condition clause. Finally I think pre-existing conditions should only be based on the time of diagnosis of that condition. Thus having a particular gene that goes undiagnosed until later in life (eg the gene for Huntington's disease) cannot be considered a pre-existing condition even though the person was born with the genes and would definitely get the disease barring some accidental death before the disease symptoms could manifest. "Pre-existing" should be defined as when either participant gains knowledge of a condition.

Finally I think that family coverage should be extended to children while they are in school. However I disagree that this age should be set to 27. The age of majority for most situations is 18. At this point, a person can enter into legal-binding contracts, such as signing for an insurance policy of their own. Besides not everyone needs coverage to be extended to them that long... Although some 20-somthings will continue on in college and could benefit from coverage under their parent's plan, not everyone does. Some may decide to enlist in the military, while others decide to start working at a job. Perhaps a college-gap insurance could be extended to parents that want to cover their children beyond 18 years of age. Something where the insurance company guarantees that the premiums to the child using this college-gap type of insurance would be held consistent in terms of premiums, coverage etc. as some one of the same age etc. that purchased their own insurance starting at 18, provided that the college-gap-insured sticks with the same insurance company at the end of the college-gap program. But again, this should not be mandated that the insurance companies include this coverage on the parent's plan, but rather should be up to the "child" and parent as to how the young-adult is to be covered after they turn 18.


trucktina

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 0x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2011, 02:16:09 pm »
Quote
Is that a quote from the Colbert Report? If so, I can't take your thread seriously. That's a comedy show.

Comedy or not, the point still stands. Only look at the words if that helps.

Fair enough. Others have answered you better than I can. America is one of the most generous nations as far as charities are concerned.

Quote
Certainly if the poor can get protection from police and fires, then why not healthcare?


Because it's unconstitutional for the government to force anyone to buy a product or service. Since the mandate is the way this program is paid for, you can't do it.

The poor do have health care. No one is turned away from emergency rooms in our country.

Flackle

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556 (since 2011)
  • Thanked: 9x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2011, 05:53:08 pm »
The main dilemma with health care is that the current system IS broken, but having getting more involved with health care is not going to help our situation. It may, temporarily, but with horrendous long-term affects. We are ALREADY broke without universal heath care. We already cannot afford these programs and wars the government is pushing out and to add another huge government institution will not help with situation at all.

Now assume we can actually afford health care. Assume we are no longer in a conflict with the middle east. Assume we now long have to support bases across the world. Assume most of the welfare we assure for many people in the united states (food stamps, social security, Medicare and medicate), assume we no longer have a self-inflating fiat currency and we go back to having a strong national currency. Assume we have the resources and ability to create a federal government-run health care system with little to no long term affects. The problem is that such a system is morally wrong.

I have an extremely limited view on the role of the federal government. The federal government should only be a representative in trading with other nations, and protecting the nation when it is clearly attacked by another nation and declares a war with that other nation. The government also has limited roles in dealing with state vs state issues and acts as a watch over the states power. I do not believe the federal government has the authority to: Institute a national police force, ban the use of anything that does not threaten the entire nation (IE, nuclear weapons should be prohibited as one of these bombs can have long term negative affects on the entire world, but I don't think the nation is threated by one firearm, or someones drugs.), institute a welfare state, create and run a national bank, institute tax on income, and of course a national insert-good/service-here. If I where to speak specifically on Health care:

The government cannot provide goods and services. A government does not have the magical ability of creating fully trained doctors, medical equipment, food, or cars. These things are created by the hard work of individuals. In order for a government to provide a service like health care they must take away this service from another individual. This service isn't forced by gunpoint, but instead the government takes tax money and gives it to the doctors to pay for their service. And in order to receive this money they must force it from its citizens. The money is suppose to benefit the citizens in the end, but I believe a free market system in which patients can choose where to spend their own money instead of someone else choosing how to spend their money. Of course not everyone can afford the overbearing cost of health care. This is why we have insurance. The problem is that the insurance industry is so heavily regulated that instead of the free market being allowed to pick and choose what insurance companies are actually legitimate, the government does this. This is all moot if in a government ran health-care system, patients may be forced into getting health insurance from the government, even if they don't want it. They will be forced into the system as they are with social security. It will become illegal to receive health care by anyone who is not certified by the government, and to be certified by the government they would have the work with the government's health care system. If people where given the option to opt out, it would become apparent that the system would collapse simply because no one would use it.

Overall it is much simpler to simply allow the free market on how to dictate the allocation of goods and services rather than a small group of 1000 or so individuals. The problem is that we are sort of both, so the benefits of a free market system are struggling against a government-ran corporatist system and the free market system is getting bad rep from it. The solution isn't more government regulation, taxation, and expansion. The problem with our economy is that the government is way too involved. Most of these problems related to health-care, retirement, and food are a direct result of a weak economy created by this overbearing brother who thinks that it knows best when all its doing is causing mal-investment, wasted resources, failed programs, and an overall waste of money that would have otherwise been used by the free market to do the exact opposite of what the government does. Free markets are not perfect, and they make mistakes. But the mistakes are fixed (its called bankruptcy). Mal-investment is an accepted risk in the free market system and it only seen as just another loss. When the government does this it is on a much greater scale and with a larger pool of money (imagine the government saying they are now bankrupt).

This is why we can't have good things (a good health-care system). It isn't the free markets fault, it isn't the fault of large corporations, it isn't china's fault. Its the fact that our currency is weak. It the fact we have a national federal banking system that creates money with no real value and expects to buy everything in the world with it. Including health-care for everyone.

kords21

    US flag
    View Profile
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 631 (since 2008)
  • Thanked: 2x
Re: Republican + Christian = ???
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2011, 06:51:15 am »
The only way the gov't can help anyone is by taking from someone else to give to the poor/needy. The gov't only does that when a certain party can "buy the vote" if you will. That's why chairity works best when it's left to people themsleves to give not being told at gunpoint basically.

  • Print
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
80 Replies
22912 Views
Last post September 10, 2011, 07:09:14 am
by falcon9
1 Replies
830 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 07:08:30 pm
by alina6
0 Replies
580 Views
Last post November 23, 2011, 05:50:19 am
by madeara
1 Replies
868 Views
Last post December 20, 2011, 07:14:09 am
by mc1962
10 Replies
1242 Views
Last post March 05, 2016, 10:59:38 am
by potluck6