Posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:24 PM PDT by iceskater
The landmark vote on health care by the House of Representatives March 21 affirms The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles that declares health care is a “basic human right,” the top executive of the denomination’s social action agency said.
"For decades, the General Board of Church and Society has worked alongside thousands of United Methodists to achieve health care for all in the U.S.," said Jim Winkler, chief executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society. "This vote brings us closer to that reality."
The majority of United Methodist lawmakers in the House voted against the plan. However, in her closing remarks before the legislation was approved, Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to The United Methodist Church as one of many organizations “sending a clear message to members of Congress: Say yes to health care reform.” More specifically, the Board of Church and Society is included on Pelosi’s Web site listing organizations supporting reform.
While it has historically supported access to health care for all, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly did not act on the specific legislation. General Conference, held every four years, last met in 2008.
Votes by United Methodists in House of Representatives
YES:
Vic Snyder (D), Ark. Doris Matsui (D), Cali. Laura Richardson (D), Cali. Allen Boyd (D), Fla. Suzanne Kosmas (D), Fla. Baron Hill (D), Ind. David Loebsack (D), Iowa Dutch Ruppersberger (D), Md. Mark Schauer (D), Mich. Bennie Thompson (D), Miss. Russ Carnahan (D), Mo. Emanuel Cleaver II (D), Mo. Betty Sutton (D), Ohio Bart Gordon (D), Tenn. Lloyd Doggett (D), Texas Gene Green (D), Texas Solomon Ortiz (D), Texas Rick Larsen (D), Wash.
NO:
Marion Berry (D), Ark. Mike Ross (D), Ark. Mike Coffman (R), Colo. Jeff Miller (R), Fla. Bill Posey (R), Fla. Bill Young (R), Fla. Steve Buyer (R), Ind. Lynn Jenkins (R), Kan. Jerry Moran (R), Kan. Ed Whitfield (R), Ky. Mike Rogers (R), Mich. John Kline (R), Minn. Lee Terry (R), Neb. Steven LaTourette (R), Ohio Dan Boren (D), Okla. Tom Cole (R), Okla. Phil Roe (R), Tenn. Joe Barton (R), Texas John Culberson (R), Texas Chet Edwards (D), Texas Kay Granger (R), Texas Ralph Hall (R), Texas Sam Johnson (R), Texas Pete Olson (R), Texas Pete Sessions (R), Texas Rick Boucher (D), Virginia Differing opinions United Methodists, like most Americans, have taken different positions on the basic legislation approved by the House. Opponents of the legislation have cited its cost, its expansion of federal power and concerns that it would reverse past policy by allowing federal funding of abortions.
The United Methodist Church is third among religious groups in the total number of members of the 111th Congress. Among its 44 members in the House, 26 voted no; 18 voted yes.
“There are parts of this bill that are good, including much-needed health insurance reforms and making health insurance affordable for the uninsured,” said Rep. Mike Ross, a United Methodist from Arizona who opposed the legislation. “On the other hand, many parts of this bill cause me great concern, like telling people they must buy health insurance or be fined, cutting Medicare by more than a half-trillion dollars, increasing taxes and forcing businesses to provide health insurance to their employees.”
Rep. Marion Berry, a United Methodist from Arkansas, said health care reform “must be deficit-neutral and must be fully paid for by squeezing out more savings from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and private insurance industry instead of cramming down hospitals and other providers and taxing Americans.”
United Methodist Congresswoman Laura Richardson of California voted for the legislation.
“While this legislation does not include an comprehensive full public option as the House of Representatives preferred, it is a giant step forward in beginning the reform of our nation’s current neglectful health care system,” she said.
Palmer rejoices Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the Council of Bishops, said he “rejoiced” at the passage of the bill because it aligns with the values of The United Methodist Church.
Though the denomination’s chief legislative body, the General Conference, has taken no stand, it has been a strong advocate for universal health care.
The United Methodist Church in its law book states: “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”
The 2008 United Methodist Book of Resolutions adds: “In the United States today, however, fulfillment of this duty is thwarted by simultaneous crises of access, quality, and cost. The result of these crises is injustice to the most vulnerable, increased risk to health care consumers, and waste of scarce public and private resources.”
Resolution 3201 in the United Methodist Book of Resolutions charges the United Methodist Board of Church and Society with primary responsibility for advocating health care for all in the United States Congress. The resolution was approved by the 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s highest policy-making body.
Paul Brown, a Duke graduate student, called for unity amid disagreement.
“Sisters and brothers, our unity is grounded in Jesus Christ—not in the details of health care reform,” he wrote on the denomination’s Facebook site. “As a church that includes both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush as members, we are free to disagree on various social issues, but we remain united in one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”
News media contact: Kathy L. Gilbert, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org
The right to life does not mean you have to provide me with food.
The right to health care does not mean you have to provide me with medicine.
You cannot obstruct my access to food, however, or you are actively killing me.
You cannot obstruct my access to medicine, however, or you are actively killing me.
No, the disease killed him. Maybe I'm saving vial number 10 for me or my children or I want to sell it on e-bay for a higher price.
So if I withhold one vial for some arbitrary reason, what business is that of anyone other than myself? I am not obstructing your access to health care any more than Dom Perignon is obstructing my access to champagne.
The right to life does not include the obligation of someone else to sell you or give you some magic tonic or perform some medical procedure (for free or for pay) to keep you alive. The right to life means only that no one other than God has the right to take your life from you. It does not obligate others to keep you alive. That may be a moral obligation, but it is not a constitutional obligation. Under the Constitution, if it makes me happy to watch you die when I have the power to save you, then I have that constitutional right to do nothing to help you as long as I do nothing to hurry the process along.
Then there is no such right as a "right to heath care."
Even if there was, the only right you would have is to perform your own health care. There are a lot of web sites which show you how to take out an appendix. Just grab a knife and a mirror. If I stand in your way, or if I take away your knife or your mirror, then I suppose you could say I was obstructing your right to take out your own appendix. But other than that, you have no "right to health care" any more than you have a right to happiness.
Do you believe in the right to life?
“his right to life”
Where is it written that the “right to life” is more important than the “right to happiness”? i.e. why should I have to buy insurance when the money could be better used on spring break or why should I be deprived of a new car every year so that someone else can buy insurance?
Charity comes from the heart, not the government.
The right to life is not the same as the right to live.
The right to life means that nobody can actively take your life from you.
The right to live (which is what you seem to be proposing with the "right to health care") would necessarily carry with it a concomitant obligation upon everyone else to do all within their power to keep you alive.
So are you advocating for a "right to live"? Is society then under an obligation to keep you alive even as death is knocking on your door? If there is a "right to live" then the government would have a moral and legal obligation to provide not only for everyone's health insurance, but to actively provide everyone's medical treatment.
If there is a "right to health care" then the government would be obligated to ensure that everyone not only have access to it, but that everyone have it. In that case Obamacare certainly does not go far enough.
Does your believing in a right to life mean that YOU have an obligation to provide me with food to keep me alive?
I personally have a moral obligation to provide you with that which by the Grace of God, you cannot provide for yourself. That is charity. I have no right to demand that someone else provide you with those necessities nor do you have a right to demand that I do so under penalty of law.
To force me to pay for your food is to rob me of my money and steal from me the opportunity to be charitable with what God has provided me. Frankly forced charity is a sin in that it robs God of the glory and gives glory to the politicians who passed the laws which compel citizens to pay for your food and other necessities.
Churches which advocate for government sponsored social programs paid for by the general treasury are robbing God.
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.