Posted on 09/19/2011 11:33:18 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Even though Ron Paul clarified himself at the Tea Party debate, and explained that he doesn’t think those who can’t afford medical care should be laid out on the curb to die, the Left went about painting his answer as morally abominable. Before we deal with their abuse of Christian doctrine, let’s see what Paul said:
"I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches—would do it."
A great answer, it seems to me, and thoroughly Christian, unless you take the United Nations as an instantiation of the Gospel command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Liberals latch onto the Good Samaritan aspect of the commandment and think, if my neighbor, then why not the fellow two counties over, two states over, or two countries over?
Newsflash: prudence is a part of moral calculations.
The Good Samaritan was passing by the man who had been beaten and robbed, and was in a position to help him. But while residents of Alaska and Florida are each others’ neighbors in one sense, they cannot be of service to each other in the same way that they can those on their own streets. Moral considerations involve not only intention but also acts themselves, and whether they are likely to succeed (cf. Catholic just war principles).
Furthermore, the federal government might be practically able to assume some of the responsibilities of the Good Samaritan, but no one on the Christian Left has provided an argument why it should—why it would be better for neighbors to love each other through government, in some sort of progressive trinity. Otherwise, isn’t it best to let people practice love of neighbor themselves, so that they can store up treasure in Heaven?
Finally, most of the people making these arguments don’t think Congress should pass some sort of Obamacare law for the entire world, but that’s exactly where their thinking leads. Really why not preemptively cover any Martians without access to dental care and free contraception? Well, because that would cost too much.
There isn’t much of anything that Paul makes sense on. This answer is ludicrous. Where are all these flush churches capable of paying medical costs which would be in the high billions?
I guess he has not been paying attention to what is happening in churches today. Almost all the small ones are hanging on by their fingernails as congregations are shrinking across the nation. Not only are young people NOT joining in significant numbers but believers are dying off on a daily basis.
He does not address (refuses to) the gigantic costs of treating Illegals and citizen deadbeats which are bankrupting hospitals throughout the nation.
Paul’s views on paying medicinal costs are as screwy as his foreign policy ideas.
BTW when Paul graduated from medical school medical costs had not been exploded by Medicare, Medicaid and attacks by schools of predatory Democrat lawyers. Doctors were not paying $100,000 per yr for malpractice insurance as Protection Money against the lawyers.
“Where are all these flush churches capable of paying medical costs which would be in the high billions?”
squeezed out by the government. Economy is bad so there are fewer donations.
We've had the whole concept of charity - taking care of our families, friends, neighbors, the church (which in turn can minister to the community) - expunged by the brainwashing that it is the Government's purpose to provide for all. Instead of charity, this evolves into entitlements where people believe they have nonexistent 'rights' ('rights' to a free education, 'rights' to a good paying job, 'rights' to a house, etc).
And thus we've become slaves to a Government. And people have turned over the duty of God-fearing charity, and love for family and neighbor, to a godless Washington D.C.
As if anyone really needed R-U-N Paul to tell us that the Left sucks!!
While there is less money to contribute, the churches are disappearing for far worse reasons than the government. Many barely believe anything traditional Christianity believed and very few accept it all. And these are “believers”.
An excellent answer. Too bad the Religous Left has sold out it's soul to far Leftists political ideology and cannot recognize the teaching of Christ anymore.
Christ taught us that it is OUR responsibility to care for the needy, not the responsibility of the State to do it for us.
I suggest if the "church" was actually helping the least of these it would not be dying and the young people would be flocking to be part of it.
Many churches do what they can but the Leftist takeovers others have experienced cause them to think that governments can do the job.
Perhaps you should compare the actual amount that churches take in every year vs the actual costs of health care and get back to us.
It should also be considered that religiously affiliated hospitals are a large part of the health care system, if not the majority. And they do not refuse treatment for any bum who staggers in.
If I were Paul I would have said, “ you libs sit back and let 4000 babies die every damn day in this country all in the facade name of choice and you’re worried about a frickin’ hypothetical question?? And you’re concerned about someone who made a choice not to obtain coverage?? You people are the purveyors of death”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.