Healthcare Reform Thread II

[DanS]

Aside from the obvious Duh moment and snarky commentary that the words Obama, Dem and leadership should not be used in the same sentence; the above statement is bad news in what regard?

Like Drake, I think a good, innovative health care bill would have been positive for the country. Of course, that's a little vague. Maybe if you presented 100 different bills to me, I would disapprove of 99 of them.

This is like amateur hour, though. Over one year of work and all we got to show for it is this POS bill that has no chance of passing?

[HalfLotus]

Did you have hope of a 'good, innovative' bill being developed and passed by the Congress? Sounds like fantasy land to me.

[DanS]

At a minimum, I expected them to fail with a much better bill.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This is like amateur hour, though.

Perhaps a bit generous. More like amateur hour at the special olympics.

[Ecofarm]

And you're the guy who only says "drr". Return fire or quit that BS "don't judge me/people" crap.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And you're the guy who only says "drr". Return fire or quit that BS "don't judge me/people" crap.

Drr? Care to translate into a comprehensible langauge?

[DinoDoc]

If Stupak sticks to his guns (and I don't see why he wouldn't at this point), what's the point of this farce other than to further shame the Democratic majority?

Stupak: There's No Deal, And I Won't Agree to a Promise to Fix the Bill in the Future

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak said yesterday at a townhall in his home state, "I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago" that a deal could be reached to pass a health care bill that bans public funding of abortion. Some speculated that this meant Stupak was ready to cave. "Obviously they don’t know me," Stupak said in an interview this afternoon with THE WEEKLY STANDARD. "If I didn’t" cave in November, "why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through?"

"Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.

But Stupak made one thing very clear: While he's optimistic, there's a lot of confusion about how the House would structure a bill that he could vote for. Stupak says "the majority party can get it done. Where there’s a will there’s a way." But: "No one has said here's how you do it, here's the legislative scheme."

Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill's problems on abortion later: "If they say 'we’ll give you a letter saying we'll take care of this later,' that’s not acceptable because later never comes."

Stupak highlighted other problems with the bill: The president's proposal has not been translated into legislative language and it still leaves some special deals in place. "If you look at the President’s proposal," Stupak said, "it says that the Cornhusker agreement is out, but the Louisiana Purchase is in."

"Members don’t have a whole lot of appetite to vote for the Senate bill as a stand alone bill--that’s for sure," Stupak said. "If you're going to correct these inequities in the Senate bill, you better tie bar it to something. No one wants to vote for a freestanding bill so they can be accused of voting for a special deal for Nebraska on Medicaid."

Stupak added:

The president still hasn’t put forth his proposal. I mean, other than the 11 pages [of changes], we’ve seen nothing in writing. It’s different than what the Senate did. So do they take three [measures] and merge it into one and stick it in a bill called reconciliation, or just do the Senate bill as a stand alone?

“You have to tie-bar it or substitute it or something," Stupak said of the legislation. By "tie-bar," Stupak means that all the fixes, including his amendment on abortion, would pass or fail all at the same time. Stupak says that congressional leaders are "going back and forth in different ways" to find a compromise. But again, "it is so confusing," he said, "on what the parliamentary procedures are going to be" to make the fixes.

Stupak said he has not yet spoken to the president, who invited him to the Russian opera last week. Asked if he was a big fan of the opera, Stupak, who represents a district encompassing the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, laughed and said: "No, I’m not a fan of opera, especially not Russian opera because I wouldn't understand a thing."

Stupak said that White House officials are "trying to get face time with members to convince them to vote for a bill that no one has seen in writing."

"The point I was trying to make" by relaying the opera story, Stupak said, "is that the White House is pulling out all of the stops trying to get members to commit to voting for health care. I continue to say to the White House: Put forth your proposal in writing so that members can see it. No member is so weak on this issue that just because they got to go to the opera they’re going to vote for health care."

Stupak emphasized that his coalition of pro-life Democrats is sticking together: "My numbers remain firm at 12. These are 12 who voted for it [in November] who will not vote for it unless we resolve this issue."

[Drake Tungsten]

Did you have hope of a 'good, innovative' bill being developed and passed by the Congress?

Wyden-Bennett would be a good starting point.

[Kidlicious]

Where was that implied in what I wrote?

Where you said people should help themselves by purchasing their own insurance and that would bring them closer to God.

A pretty good indication that one should not trust the constructs of man (i.e the government) and depend upon the force of arms (Flesh) for ones strength and compulsion to obey.

It's got nothing to do with trust (as in trusing in God). It's about obedience, and being righteous. If your government tries to prevent you from obeying God, then you can disobey it, otherwise your government is there as a demostration of God's authority. And it specifically says in the Bible to obey the king otherwise he will punish you.

Course not. What I indicated was that one follows the guidance of the Lord, not the dictates of man.

It's not always either or. Do you tell your boss that you don't follow the dictates of man?
[quote]

Also there is nothing in the Bible that states that a government can not compel it's subjects.

Save what you yourself provided earlier.

when?

I am.

Do you believe in the authority of scripture? What scripture do you base your beliefs on? You know so many Americans call themselves Christians and they believe all kinds of things that are not Christian. That's why I asked if you believe that God helps them who help themselves, because people believe that that is actually a Christian belief.

That being said I don't choose to cast judgement on others religious beliefs or engage in ad hominems about religious beliefs (save communism).

By stating your own beliefs you have cast judgement on mine.

It comes down to this. If Christianity is your faith than you should believe what the Bible says, otherwise as Paul said your God is your belly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Where you said people should help themselves by purchasing their own insurance and that would bring them closer to God.

An invented passage does not make it a stated one. To be clear, I said no such thing. My meaning if you didn't follow it is that voluntary philanthropy is the basis of free will and following the dictate of God. Helping one's fellow man is anything from financial assistance to providing care and healing activities providing food for the hungry, helping those with with their burdens. No where did I state anything regarding the requirement to purchase insurance for oneself or someone else.

The basis of salvation is acting of your own free will in meeting these obligations. No where do you get any bonus points for meeting the social obligations by virtue of forcing others to do so. You have merely denied them opportunities to act in a faithful manner.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It's got nothing to do with trust (as in trusing in God). It's about obedience, and being righteous. If your government tries to prevent you from obeying God, then you can disobey it, otherwise your government is there as a demostration of God's authority. And it specifically says in the Bible to obey the king otherwise he will punish you.

1. Course it has everything to do with trust in the Lord. Faith in the Lord is what sustains you not the trapping of man and his devices and social constructs. Judah and his tribe are being punished for not being faithful and more to the point were so full of hubris to think that they could be sustained via the strength of man rather than in being righteous. Hmm... kind of like thinking that faith in the institutions of governement can replace the requirement for personally doing what is right.

2. Your government is a demonstration of the God's Authority???? I'm pretty sure that went out of vogue with the idea of Divine Right.

3. I am assuming king in your last sentence means an earthly ruler. Again, no such king exists and certainly not via Divine Right and providence at least not since circa 1770's.

To be contextual

1
The sin of Judah is written with an iron stylus, Engraved with a diamond point upon the tablets of their hearts.(And the horns of their altars,
2
when their sons remember their altars and their sacred poles, beside the green trees, on the high hills,
3
the peaks in the highland.) Your wealth and all your treasures I will give as spoil. In recompense for all your sins throughout your borders,
4
You will relinquish your hold on your heritage which I have given you. I will enslave you to your enemies in a land that you know not: For a fire has been kindled by my wrath that will burn forever.
5
Thus says the LORD: Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings, who seeks his strength in flesh, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
6
He is like a barren bush in the desert that enjoys no change of season, But stands in a lava waste, a salt and empty earth.
7
Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose hope is the LORD.
8
He is like a tree planted beside the waters that stretches out its roots to the stream: It fears not the heat when it comes, its leaves stay green; In the year of drought it shows no distress, but still bears fruit.
9
More tortuous than all else is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it?
10
I, the LORD, alone probe the mind and test the heart, To reward everyone according to his ways, according to the merit of his deeds.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It's not always either or. Do you tell your boss that you don't follow the dictates of man?

All the time. Further, my boss does not determine if I am to be incarcerated or to be deprived of my freedom were I to directly disobey them. Further I always have the choice to enter into mutually agreed to contracts with others who I have more closely aligned interests.

[Kidlicious]

The basis of salvation is acting of your own free will in meeting these obligations. No where do you get any bonus points for meeting the social obligations by virtue of forcing others to do so. You have merely denied them opportunities to act in a faithful manner.

If you are in a position of power to help someone, and you do, that is a form of service to them and therefore, if done out of love for God, a christian act. If out of a desire to selfserve you fail to help, then that is an unchristian act. Therefore it is a christian act to help people get healthcare when you have the power to do so.

And that's not denying anyone any ability to give charity. Charity has nothing to do with a dollar amount. It's what in your heart that matters. Health care reform will not change people's hearts.

[Kidlicious]

1. Course it has everything to do with trust in the Lord. Faith in the Lord is what sustains you not the trapping of man and his devices and social constructs. Judah and his tribe are being punished for not being faithful and more to the point were so full of hubris to think that they could be sustained via the strength of man rather than in being righteous. Hmm... kind of like thinking that faith in the institutions of governement can replace the requirement for personally doing what is right.

See previous post. I'm not saying that supporting reform can replace any action. My position is that opposing reform is unchristian. Serving God means serving your fellow man, whether that be your King, your subjects, or anyone who you meet. Opposing reform is not serving your fellow man, and therefore not serving God.

2. Your government is a demonstration of the God's Authority???? I'm pretty sure that went out of vogue with the idea of Divine Right.

3. I am assuming king in your last sentence means an earthly ruler. Again, no such king exists and certainly not via Divine Right and providence at least not since circa 1770's.

To talk about kings-subject relationships specifically, is not my aim. Christians are obligated to serve people, and in doing so we serve God. Kings also serve. What you are not suppose to do is serve yourself. You can take care of yourself, but not be concerned for your own wellbeing. It's God who will take care of your needs.

[Kidlicious]

All the time. Further, my boss does not determine if I am to be incarcerated or to be deprived of my freedom were I to directly disobey them. Further I always have the choice to enter into mutually agreed to contracts with others who I have more closely aligned interests.

Colossians 3:18-25 gives us the instructions for serving others.

18Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

20Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.

21Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.

22Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

23Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,

24knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

25For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.

Which means that if you have earthly authority then you should treat those under you as Christ treats you, and for every authority placed over you you should treat that authority as if you are obeying God.