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.
I think that it is a noble GOAL to provide healthcare for all and I believe that our Lord expressed His wishes on this in Matthew 25: 31-46. This is a goal that will NEVER be reached, but it can still be the goal.
I do not believe for a minute that socialized medicine will do anything but hinder this goal. However, I think that insurance companies bear a lot of blame as well. A century ago health insurance was unheard of, yet the only people who lacked medical care were people who lived in areas where there were no doctors or hospitals. Doctors and hospitals DO NOT turn people away in need of necessary care based on affordibility. Moreover, many doctors volunteer at clinics and donate supplies to them as well.
Liberty would ensure that people have a right to "pursue" health care, but no inalienable right to "receive" health care. The DOI mentions our right to "pursue" happiness, but does not guarantee us a "right to happiness." In other words, I am at liberty to pursue health care provided I have the means to secure that liberty either by way of charity or by the use of my own hard earned money. I have no right to compel others to provide me with my "rights" at a cost to them of their money (i.e., to confiscate a portion of the means by which they are able to "pursue" their own happiness).
So, I would disagree with your insistence that there is a "right to health care". There isn't any such right. There is a right to pursue happiness, which is all encompassing liberty provided it does not trample on the rights of other to pursue their happiness.
If we have a "right to health care" then there would have to be a concomitant obligation of doctors and nurses and hospitals to provide that health care without remuneration and even against their will. We abolished that idea with the 13th amendment. Or at least I thought we did.
That could be and I'm sorry if I have misunderstood. I just know that the premise and driving principle behind Obamacare is that health care is a moral right.
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.
From a moral standpoint I would agree with Marlowe and say that your healthcare is different because it was well earned. The people have collectively and correctly decided that part of our moral debt to you for your patriotic service in protection of our freedoms is healthcare for you. I consider that different from an unearned and unlimited right to healthcare at the forced expense of taxpayers.
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.
It makes all the difference in the world. Gov't health plans are normally funded by confiscating money from the people. That can be moral if it is in exchange for something, but if not then it cannot be said to be in protection of a right. I would not say it is immoral for a government to run a healthcare program per se if it did not rely on stealing to fund it. I would just say it is improper for our government to do that since that is not a purpose of our government. An Amendment to our Constitution could change that, but that is what it would take.
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.
Then you appear to be saying that healthcare is a right that should not be protected by the government. I am confused. :)
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.
Everyone agrees this would be ideal. We're trying to figure out what is right based on current conditions.
I wrote the following last week while everyone was thinking there were going to flip some democratic congresscritters:
Many of those ideas sound good to me and are antithetical to Obamacare. I suppose the core issue is whether healthcare is a right. If we concede that it is, then the progressives have won the war. The rest is quibbling over the best way for government to enforce and protect that right.