Sure, but isn't there a big difference between the right to not have one's life unlawfully taken away and a right to force other people to sacrifice to any degree to maintain everyone's life? Do you draw a line between universal coverage for all healthcare and universal life-saving-only healthcare? We already have the latter right now, so I'm trying to figure out what changes vis-a-vis Obamacare you are supporting.
You haven't been reading my posts if you think I support Obamacare. What I said was that there is nothing immoral about saying there is a right to health care. I also said there is nothing inherently immoral about the government providing health care. As I mentioned, I am a military retiree after 24 years service, and I have been part of a government health plan for decades.
P-Marlowe pointed out that I earned that health care, and I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a government sponsored health plan.
What we object to is an addition to the welfare program, and that is what Obamacare is. Rightly, Marlowe points out that a man should have to work to provide sustenance for himself and his family. Those are all principles with which I agree.
That is why I purposely stated above that a vibrant economy with real jobs is the best government health plan. For some reason, no one seems to read those comments.
I wrote the following last week while everyone was thinking there were going to flip some democratic congresscritters:
In Before the Knockdown: How the Republicans handed the Democrats an ObamaCare victory
Attempting to explain the Methodist organization to those not a part of it, is akin to explaining the workings of the US Congress to a foreigner.
It is a democratic body that meets on once every for years for 10 days. It takes an extremely long time to bring about change when you only get one shot every 4 years.
In short, we are just now finishing up throwing off the stupidity of the 60's and 70's. If you think about it, we've only had 7 meetings since the end of the 70's.
We have no leader. There is no one in charge. Each region is just about totally independent under its bishop EXCEPT for something called the Book of Discipline and the Social Principles which are stroked every 4 years a few lines at a time.
We have boards and agencies that are in charge of certain areas such as missions, or education, or ordination, but their heads do not speak for the denomination, and they have zero power over me in Ohio or John Q Methodist in Iowa. None. Zilch. Nada.
So, we really are a bunch of local churches very loosely connected to a bishop whose sole power is to appoint a pastor to any particular church.
Everyone wants to view us like we're the Catholic Church with a Pope in control. It simply isn't so. We are far more like the independent local baptists than we are the Catholics in terms of our structure.
So, Iceskater, the issue is your local church. The issue is who is how it gets run, how it funds projects and outreaches, and how it applies the gospel of Jesus Christ. If YOUR LOCAL CHURCH is failing, then by all means, feel free to depart that church. In doing so, you'll be departing the UMC. But, if your local church is winning disciples and being used by the Lord, then you wait for the Lord to tell you to go before you go.