Health care for children, absolutely a right. They're at the mercy of their parents' (if they have them) choices, they should not be denied any coverage if their parents can't cover it. If you're pro-life...you better be willing to take care of the kids and single moms post-birth as well. Just another thing I wish the government didn't have to take care of...if the church did its job. I'm still undecided about adults.
I'm always hesitant to classify things as rights over and against priviledge. Should children under the age of 18 have health coverage? Yes, and I believe that under current law they do. But to elevate that to a right seems a slippery slope.
What about the right to good schools? What about the right to safe streets? What about the right to loving homes?
Some would say good schools come from vouchers, some would say they come from higher pay for teachers.
Some would say that safe streets come from more police, some would say they come from government programs that redistribute taxes
Some would say loving homes are mom and dad raising children, some would say loving homes involve loving adults and children in any combination (man/man and children, man/woman/woman and children, etc)
I may be reading too much into this, but "rights" talk always gives me pause
Rights are things you possess and that need protection, like free speech. The term I would use for health care is "Entitlement". If a majority of people in a society decide they want to provide this entitlement to everyone, then we raise the funds (taxes) and provide it.
If healthcare is a right, and therefore should be provided by the government, then the government would be able to administer and decide what is deemed to be adequate treatment. Though some may dispute that some treatment is better than none at all, especially in the case of children and those under eighteen years of age, a more startling realization occurs when a government is placed in charge of making health orientated decisions. If it is a right to be in proper health, then the government must protect that right, even if its from yourself.
We already see this. The banning of smoking in public places and the removal of trans fats from foods. Though those two instances may be held by a majority, what happens when the government decides, in the betterment of your right to health, that you must lose weight or are not allowed to participate in anything that may be deemed as having too much risk; for example skate boarding because of the increased chance of twisting an ankle or spraining a wrist.
Also, if healthcare is a right, the implication is that a healthy life is a right. So, if a person decides not to work and watch TV all day and has no money for food then it is his right for the government to provide him food and get him into better shape.
Should healthcare be affordable? Yes. Should it be a right? No.
Another issue that must be addressed is that of the homeless and the mentally ill (two categories which have much overlap). If healthcare is a commodity, then those who have no economic power lose, and the economy as a whole loses.
A friend of mine who has dealt with mental illness in his own life as well as sincere long-term involvement with the homeless in Waco has called this the great unidentified (or misidentified) scandal of American healthcare. Too many people are put in this situation because they have no way of affording the expensive drugs and treatment that could enable them to function normally in society.
Folks, the number one reason this is even an issue is because of how freaking expensive healthcare is. Why is it so expensive? Three reasons - our litigious society (thank you John Edwards, etc.), our desire to live forever, and general lack of personal responsibility coupled with the expectation there will be no consequences (as graydave alluded to - "entitlement"). Actually, there's a fourth, and its the fact most of us in the US are already subsidizing heavily, so those in the rest of the world who are without can obtain medicines and treatments at little or no cost.
Health CARE is not a right, and is certainly a privilege. Was it required of scientists in the past to create medical solutions that we now enjoy? No; hence the right to a particular treatment can't even exist until it has been developed. Basic human rights are not temporal.
Consider this - what if we find out five years later that a particular treatment we demand we have a right to causes another disease or deficiency? So now we have a right, a duty even, to contract new, more insidious, diseases and cancers? No thanks.
Children should have free access to basic and emergency services, whether their parents can afford it or not - Churches need to be looking more actively into how they help make sure that NEED (not a right) is met without Uncle Sam getting involved. But, I want to puke when I hear folks using children as a shield for their Marxist political agendas.
If it truly is a right, then we will need clinics on every other street corner, as well as doctors scouring the countryside looking for "neglected" children (hey, kids out on the ranches should have equal access, just like the urban kids, right?).
joelg11 - Why shouldn't children be at the mercy of their God-given parents' choices? God gave children parents, not government. Its a cruel "right wing" soundbite, I know, but its the most sobering thing for a parent to have to think about. Our nation right now doesn't need hope or change for the sake of change, but it sure could use a sobering and resulting maturing.
With current trends, now the parents will have one less God-given responsibility to "worry" about. Obama says he will make those choices, and others (remember, "It Takes a Village") will pay for it so they don't have to. Those parents, and hence kids, will end up that much worse off for it.
You all need to talk to your grandparents about the healthcare rights they had during the Great Depression. They all survived, as horrible as it was - not sure how, but they did.
Health care is a privilege now for those who reap the benefits of those who sacrificed and went without before us. Out of sincere compassion we should spread those benefits to all, but we should despise the thought of bureaucrats doing that job for us.
When did caring for each other as a society become such a bad thing Anonymous? I'm not saying a child is not at the mercy of their parents' choices, the children of the single mom on meth certainly have a road ahead of them that I cannot comprehend, but I think leaving them without the right to healthcare is devastating. There are many things they cannot control, but if they want to have it, they should have health and education. My ideal scenario, as we all allude to is less government in this area and more Christians meeting needs. But what do we care about here? I've been thinking alot about this lately and I've decided I care about the end result. I care about people in need getting those needs met. I want the church to do this, and it part, they have. But where they fail, and another system is in place to help the end result I care about, I support it. Play the blame game all you want, and point fingers at the irresponsible and the wake of pain they leave for their generations, but think about the end result and our call as Christians to love and serve our world.
joelg11 - So God's design for the Church can be outdone by man's sterile, Christ-less methods? As we are taxed further, there will be significantly less net funds for families to contribute to Churches, further minimizing the Churches material ability to provide for others. In the mean time, health, etc. is being handed over to mechanical, heartless processes and systems, degrading the real benefits of healthcare. Much of the benefits from healthcare come from the compassion involved, and not the serums and machines.
Ever noticed how a lot of hospitals have a name pointing back to initial ties to a denomination? Notice how things have degraded on the compassion side at hospitals as it is now totally secularized?
How many of you commenting work for Uncle Sam, or a large bureaucracy? How many of you know with any certainty you can trust politicians to hold to their core promises they got elected on? How many of you realize most of this is just a chess game, using innocent children as the pawns in the pursuit of growing more godless curmudgeon empires?
As long as there are people that can MORE than afford health care, corporations making billions in profits, insurance companies making billions in profits, wars we may (or may not) need to fight that we're spending billions on, I think God would be saying we need to be taking care of each other any way we can. That includes educating those that seem to have trouble with proper health, eating, fitness, etc. too - but without judging them. Aren't we the wealthiest country and society in the world and supposed to be the most well off, but we're 43d or something in health care or something like that? We have 40 million kids in the US without adequate health care I heard? While yes, some people who obviously don't take care of themselves need help and education (and some sort of accountability) in trying to be healthy - but God would ask us not to judge these people, but to HELP them and provide for them. I hate the fact that there are services, medications, tests, etc. that my family and I all need right now, but because my wife is a contract worker for right now (working with a huge world wide company 40+ hours a week) and I am self employed, we can't afford health care coverage other than the cheapest of "catastrophic" coverage. This will change I know when (hopefully) my wife's position turns from contract to a fully employed status with the company she's with. But that's our only saving grace. So we trust that we won't get sick or be injured. BUT - I know all too well twice in life now - what it's like to have a family, having worked hard for a living and either have been laid off, or left a job, and not had health insurance. It's not so much that it's a right or a privilege, it's about the fact that unless you're well employed, there's virtually no way to even begin to have adequate health insurance for a family of even just 3 like us. So we become slaves to jobs we don't want simply to have health insurance in some cases. (most of the elderly people you see working at McDonalds, or home improvement centers? They're doing it for health insurance reasons. Not for the hourly wage.
And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met.
I'm curious what you guys think - and not saying this to spite anyone. But with all of the talk of Obama's supposed "redistribution of wealth" etc. - does that look and resonate more or less with Acts 2:42 or does the republican stance on things like this do that? Of course, they're talking government, and this is talking "the church/new community" but wondering if what Obama stands for on this issue anyway (that so many people seem against, call it socialism, etc.) is more aligned with biblical principals on this or not? (yes, I know ALL too well what he DOESN'T stand for biblically!! You don't have to go there - I've heard it all and understand, OK?)
I seem to feel that the sharing of wealth among all is more aligned, but I don't know what I'm talking about half the time so I'll ask .
The Christians in the book of Acts shared radically with each other, but they did so freely, *willingly* (they were not taxed by the government "into sharing," so to speak). Also, it's important to remember that they were *Christians,* and as such, they had the indwelling Holy Spirit to *lead* them to radically share with each other, and to also help those outside the church, as they were able.
Heavy, ever-increasing governmental taxation of the citizens of a country, and programs which call for such taxation, are not the same thing as the believers of the book of Acts sharing all things with each other. The former is a secular move toward government-mandated socialism. The latter is simply Christians living out the *implications of* the Gospel in sacrificial love.
15 comments:
Health care for children, absolutely a right. They're at the mercy of their parents' (if they have them) choices, they should not be denied any coverage if their parents can't cover it. If you're pro-life...you better be willing to take care of the kids and single moms post-birth as well. Just another thing I wish the government didn't have to take care of...if the church did its job. I'm still undecided about adults.
I'm always hesitant to classify things as rights over and against priviledge. Should children under the age of 18 have health coverage? Yes, and I believe that under current law they do. But to elevate that to a right seems a slippery slope.
What about the right to good schools?
What about the right to safe streets?
What about the right to loving homes?
Some would say good schools come from vouchers, some would say they come from higher pay for teachers.
Some would say that safe streets come from more police, some would say they come from government programs that redistribute taxes
Some would say loving homes are mom and dad raising children, some would say loving homes involve loving adults and children in any combination (man/man and children, man/woman/woman and children, etc)
I may be reading too much into this, but "rights" talk always gives me pause
Rights are things you possess and that need protection, like free speech. The term I would use for health care is "Entitlement". If a majority of people in a society decide they want to provide this entitlement to everyone, then we raise the funds (taxes) and provide it.
Neither.
Health care is a commodity.
If you believe that one person can steal from another to give to a third party then you might see differently.
Aren't we guaranteed the right to life, and part of protecting that life is the right to health care?
I may be way off (always possible), but that's just my first reaction.
Do "rights" change over time, or are they fundamental realities?
Did people 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, miss out on their "right" to having "healthcare," "education," financial security, etc.?
If healthcare is a right, and therefore should be provided by the government, then the government would be able to administer and decide what is deemed to be adequate treatment. Though some may dispute that some treatment is better than none at all, especially in the case of children and those under eighteen years of age, a more startling realization occurs when a government is placed in charge of making health orientated decisions. If it is a right to be in proper health, then the government must protect that right, even if its from yourself.
We already see this. The banning of smoking in public places and the removal of trans fats from foods. Though those two instances may be held by a majority, what happens when the government decides, in the betterment of your right to health, that you must lose weight or are not allowed to participate in anything that may be deemed as having too much risk; for example skate boarding because of the increased chance of twisting an ankle or spraining a wrist.
Also, if healthcare is a right, the implication is that a healthy life is a right. So, if a person decides not to work and watch TV all day and has no money for food then it is his right for the government to provide him food and get him into better shape.
Should healthcare be affordable? Yes.
Should it be a right? No.
Another issue that must be addressed is that of the homeless and the mentally ill (two categories which have much overlap). If healthcare is a commodity, then those who have no economic power lose, and the economy as a whole loses.
A friend of mine who has dealt with mental illness in his own life as well as sincere long-term involvement with the homeless in Waco has called this the great unidentified (or misidentified) scandal of American healthcare. Too many people are put in this situation because they have no way of affording the expensive drugs and treatment that could enable them to function normally in society.
Folks, the number one reason this is even an issue is because of how freaking expensive healthcare is. Why is it so expensive? Three reasons - our litigious society (thank you John Edwards, etc.), our desire to live forever, and general lack of personal responsibility coupled with the expectation there will be no consequences (as graydave alluded to - "entitlement"). Actually, there's a fourth, and its the fact most of us in the US are already subsidizing heavily, so those in the rest of the world who are without can obtain medicines and treatments at little or no cost.
Health CARE is not a right, and is certainly a privilege. Was it required of scientists in the past to create medical solutions that we now enjoy? No; hence the right to a particular treatment can't even exist until it has been developed. Basic human rights are not temporal.
Consider this - what if we find out five years later that a particular treatment we demand we have a right to causes another disease or deficiency? So now we have a right, a duty even, to contract new, more insidious, diseases and cancers? No thanks.
Children should have free access to basic and emergency services, whether their parents can afford it or not - Churches need to be looking more actively into how they help make sure that NEED (not a right) is met without Uncle Sam getting involved. But, I want to puke when I hear folks using children as a shield for their Marxist political agendas.
If it truly is a right, then we will need clinics on every other street corner, as well as doctors scouring the countryside looking for "neglected" children (hey, kids out on the ranches should have equal access, just like the urban kids, right?).
joelg11 - Why shouldn't children be at the mercy of their God-given parents' choices? God gave children parents, not government. Its a cruel "right wing" soundbite, I know, but its the most sobering thing for a parent to have to think about. Our nation right now doesn't need hope or change for the sake of change, but it sure could use a sobering and resulting maturing.
With current trends, now the parents will have one less God-given responsibility to "worry" about. Obama says he will make those choices, and others (remember, "It Takes a Village") will pay for it so they don't have to. Those parents, and hence kids, will end up that much worse off for it.
You all need to talk to your grandparents about the healthcare rights they had during the Great Depression. They all survived, as horrible as it was - not sure how, but they did.
Health care is a privilege now for those who reap the benefits of those who sacrificed and went without before us. Out of sincere compassion we should spread those benefits to all, but we should despise the thought of bureaucrats doing that job for us.
Seems to me that if we are so intent on ensuring the right to life of the unborn, we should be as concerned with ensuring that right for all men.
When did caring for each other as a society become such a bad thing Anonymous? I'm not saying a child is not at the mercy of their parents' choices, the children of the single mom on meth certainly have a road ahead of them that I cannot comprehend, but I think leaving them without the right to healthcare is devastating. There are many things they cannot control, but if they want to have it, they should have health and education.
My ideal scenario, as we all allude to is less government in this area and more Christians meeting needs. But what do we care about here? I've been thinking alot about this lately and I've decided I care about the end result. I care about people in need getting those needs met. I want the church to do this, and it part, they have. But where they fail, and another system is in place to help the end result I care about, I support it. Play the blame game all you want, and point fingers at the irresponsible and the wake of pain they leave for their generations, but think about the end result and our call as Christians to love and serve our world.
joelg11 - So God's design for the Church can be outdone by man's sterile, Christ-less methods? As we are taxed further, there will be significantly less net funds for families to contribute to Churches, further minimizing the Churches material ability to provide for others. In the mean time, health, etc. is being handed over to mechanical, heartless processes and systems, degrading the real benefits of healthcare. Much of the benefits from healthcare come from the compassion involved, and not the serums and machines.
Ever noticed how a lot of hospitals have a name pointing back to initial ties to a denomination? Notice how things have degraded on the compassion side at hospitals as it is now totally secularized?
How many of you commenting work for Uncle Sam, or a large bureaucracy? How many of you know with any certainty you can trust politicians to hold to their core promises they got elected on? How many of you realize most of this is just a chess game, using innocent children as the pawns in the pursuit of growing more godless curmudgeon empires?
As long as there are people that can MORE than afford health care, corporations making billions in profits, insurance companies making billions in profits, wars we may (or may not) need to fight that we're spending billions on, I think God would be saying we need to be taking care of each other any way we can. That includes educating those that seem to have trouble with proper health, eating, fitness, etc. too - but without judging them. Aren't we the wealthiest country and society in the world and supposed to be the most well off, but we're 43d or something in health care or something like that? We have 40 million kids in the US without adequate health care I heard? While yes, some people who obviously don't take care of themselves need help and education (and some sort of accountability) in trying to be healthy - but God would ask us not to judge these people, but to HELP them and provide for them. I hate the fact that there are services, medications, tests, etc. that my family and I all need right now, but because my wife is a contract worker for right now (working with a huge world wide company 40+ hours a week) and I am self employed, we can't afford health care coverage other than the cheapest of "catastrophic" coverage. This will change I know when (hopefully) my wife's position turns from contract to a fully employed status with the company she's with. But that's our only saving grace. So we trust that we won't get sick or be injured. BUT - I know all too well twice in life now - what it's like to have a family, having worked hard for a living and either have been laid off, or left a job, and not had health insurance. It's not so much that it's a right or a privilege, it's about the fact that unless you're well employed, there's virtually no way to even begin to have adequate health insurance for a family of even just 3 like us. So we become slaves to jobs we don't want simply to have health insurance in some cases. (most of the elderly people you see working at McDonalds, or home improvement centers? They're doing it for health insurance reasons. Not for the hourly wage.
And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met.
I'm curious what you guys think - and not saying this to spite anyone. But with all of the talk of Obama's supposed "redistribution of wealth" etc. - does that look and resonate more or less with Acts 2:42 or does the republican stance on things like this do that? Of course, they're talking government, and this is talking "the church/new community" but wondering if what Obama stands for on this issue anyway (that so many people seem against, call it socialism, etc.) is more aligned with biblical principals on this or not? (yes, I know ALL too well what he DOESN'T stand for biblically!! You don't have to go there - I've heard it all and understand, OK?)
I seem to feel that the sharing of wealth among all is more aligned, but I don't know what I'm talking about half the time so I'll ask .
thanks
John C,
The Christians in the book of Acts shared radically with each other, but they did so freely, *willingly* (they were not taxed by the government "into sharing," so to speak). Also, it's important to remember that they were *Christians,* and as such, they had the indwelling Holy Spirit to *lead* them to radically share with each other, and to also help those outside the church, as they were able.
Heavy, ever-increasing governmental taxation of the citizens of a country, and programs which call for such taxation, are not the same thing as the believers of the book of Acts sharing all things with each other. The former is a secular move toward government-mandated socialism. The latter is simply Christians living out the *implications of* the Gospel in sacrificial love.
Post a Comment