« Rallying for Immigration Reform | Main | Dem. Pro-life Group is Dissenting Voice »

March 24, 2010

Liberty University to File Suit to Halt Health Care Legislation

Liberty University has announced that it will file a lawsuit challenging the federal health care legislation.

"Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, said in a statement. “If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. Congress clearly lacks the constitutional authority to force individuals to have, or private businesses to provide, health insurance.”

Alex Isenstadt of Politico reports that thanks to the health care debates, abortion is poised to make a political comeback.

The Family Research Council, which has already spent nearly $2 million this cycle backing anti-abortion candidates across the country, is now considering wading into battles against anti-abortion Democrats like Pennsylvania Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth and West Virginia Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall — all of whom voted for the health care bill Sunday.

... NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told POLITICO that the lesson learned from the health care battle was that the abortion-rights movement, which has lacked the votes needed to shut down abortion funding language from anti-abortion Democrats throughout the health care reform push, needs more allies in Congress.

William McGurn writes about the death of the pro-life Democrats for the Wall Street Journal as Kathleen Parker looks at Stupak's fall from pro-life grace for the Washington Post.

President Obama will sign an executive order today that says that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion will remain under the new legislation. The event will be closed to the news media. The New York Times reports that Representative Bart Stupak (D-Michigan and Senator Robert Casey (D-Pennsylvania) will attend.

Comments

Good for Liberty U! I don't see how the federal government can possibly claim it has constitutional authority to require every uninsured American to purchase health insurance. And I think of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of small businesses that will be forced to close shop because they can't afford to provide health coverage for their employees. When I was uninsured, there was no way I could have purchased health insurance even with a government subsidy; I was bearly able to pay rent. How will those in similar situations be able to afford the government's mandatory coverage? And if they don't fall in line, they will face fines and possibly jail time. How on earth can our government justify this legislation?

Political analyst Charles Krauthammer stated yesterday Mar. 23, that the O. administration intentionally underreported the amount of tax money needed to fund O. Care. By next year, he said, a national sales tax will be proposed to make up the amount of $'s needed.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell


Maybe we, as Christians, have a guilty conscience... you know, "he who protesteth too loudly..." Had we, the Christian community, stepped up and taken care of the sick, the elderly, the poor, and the hurting, as we have been commanded to do by our Lord Himself, then the government would not have had to make such 'reforms.'

There is more to 'health care' than abortion, and we need to stop allowing Satan to guide us under the guise of concern about funding of abortions...who do we think pays for them now?? We all do!! Each and every one of us who has private insurance or purchases prescription medications is personally responsible for the funding of abortions.

So, what is the Christian response to 'health care reform?' Sue the government!! Or refuse to work after 2:00 p.m. Not only are we refusing to do what Christ commanded us to do -- we are arrogant in our disobedience!

We must learn to be discerning Christians. We need to re-read the Bible. We need to seek God's forgiveness and ask for a spirit of humility. We need to be honest with ourselves...we have not "loved one another as we love ourselves."

"Then those people will answer, Lord, when did we see you...sick...? ...The King will answer, 'I tell you the truth, anything you refused to do for the least of my people here, you refused to do for me.'" (Matt. 25:44b,45, NCV)

Father, forgive us.

Amen to that last insightful comment. One way or another, we ought to have been moving forward caring for all our people. We can't just say 'No', and somehow hope everybody will be taken care of magically. A law was passed. Now let's work with our representatives to make it better over time while also doing what we can to help others. And please, let's be civil and loving as we Christian discuss this and take constructive next steps forward.

Republicans and Christians who attack the democrats only have themselves to blame for this. They would have done nothing, have done nothing, ignore people who are dying and cannot get health coverage. Paul was right these arguments are about money not God. They are much comparable to the Pharisees who considered themselves righteous but would ignore the persons who need help. The American churches are full of snakes and vipers following their father Satan, listening to their tickling ears teachers on the Fox News network.

Repentance is required.

The health care bill will allow the working poor to have access to medical care currently denied them. That Liberty would raise objections to this on the basis of conservative libertarian values, makes one wonder what the students at this "Christian" university are being taught. Not biblical Christianity. Jesus' heart for the poor is nowhere to be found in this suit.

It's time conservative Christians wake up to the fact that what Jesus taught and what Rush Limbaugh teaches are not equivalent.

I am a Chriatian physician and I can tell you that healthcare reform was so greatly needed. For republican christians (lower case intentional) to fight this reform is absolutely immoral. Perhaps well-off white suburbanites can pretend that the healthcare system in the US was not broken. The numbers tell a different story.

I cannot believe that such a wonderful school and community leader would be against health care for the less fortunate. I'm sure that Mr. Falwell would roll over in his grave. Just because you all have money now due to the stringent efforts of those in the past and I might say, those who gave $5, $10, & even less, doesn't make you so uppity now that you would deny others the same privilege that you now have as a result of so many poor folk helping you. SHAME ON YOU! I will never give another dime to LIBERTY or any organization associated with it.

Oh! We are so well off and so stingy that we just must deny health care to the poor! We must have fallen so far that we would oppose the government beginning the slide into socializing medicine! After all, it isn't as if we haven't advocated far more effective free-market solutions to our problems!

Hey, pro-lifers - I'm a staunch pro-lifer myself, but let's get off the abortion hang-up, okay? There is a lot more to this bill than worrying about public funding of abortion (don't worry proaborts - we'll get taxpayer funded abortion services by hook or by crook). I mean really, can't you think of anyone else but yourselves and a bunch of blobby tissue non-persons (specifically the 4000 non-persons aborted/day, the 1.5 million non-persons aborted/year, the 52,000,000 non-persons aborted since Roe v. Wade became law). Think of all the happy moms now that don't have to worry about "that little inconvenience" anymore. After all, we must kill the baby to save the baby (nod to Lt. Carey, of the My Lai Massacre fame).
Re: My Lai Massacre:
"He fired at it [the baby] with a .45. He missed. We all laughed. He got up three or four feet closer and missed again. We laughed. Then he got up right on top and plugged him."
—Eyewitness testimony, Peers Inquiry

[This happens, in essence, 4000 times a day - here in America - land of the free, home of the brave. Gruesome and macabre, isn't it.]

But hey, let's think happy thoughts! I feel a song coming on. All together, now:

If you hate me after what I say
Can't put it off anymore
I just gotta tell you anyway

Bye bye baby, baby good-bye
(Bye baby, baby bye bye)
Bye bye baby, baby good-bye
(Bye baby, baby bye bye)

I could love you but why begin it
Cause there ain't any future in it
hmmmm, hmmmmm.......

Bye bye baby, baby good-bye
(Bye baby, baby bye bye)
Bye bye baby don't make me cry
(Bye baby, baby bye bye)

Guess I never will know you better
Wish I knew you before .....hmmmmm,
hmmm, hmmmm.....

Bye bye baby, baby good-bye.....
________________________________________________
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

DH's addendum: If you want a vision of the future, go to your local abortion clinic. The future is here. The future is now!


As someone who has been without health insurance at a time when I couldn't afford to pay for health care myself, I still don't see how this bill solves the problem. How will forcing people to purchase health insurance guarantee that everyone will in fact have health insurance? All it does is penalize those who choose not to purchase health insurance. Requiring uninsured people to purchase insurance at the threat of fines and penalties is not the same thing as universal coverage. Even with a government subsidy, there will be those who will choose to pay their bills or rent instead of buying health insurance. And while I agree that too many Christians have abdicated their responisiblity to care for "the least of these," that doesn't mean it is biblical to use the power of the state to force people to care for the poor through wealth redistribution. Jesus preached about showing compassion to the needy, but at no point did he suggest that it was acceptable to use force to compel virtue. For example, He told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give to the poor, but He did not rob the man's house and redistribute his goods. While the believers of the Early Church volunatarily shared all that they had with one another, nothing in the New Testament suggests that the apostles used force to take property from those unwilling to give.

This new law requires people to either purchase medical insurance (with financial help from the government, in many cases), or pay a tax to support the subsidies. The law has exceptions, mostly for the very poor, for whom the subsidies would still not make insurance affordable. Congress clearly has both the power to tax, and the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is much like auto insurance, where you have to be insured to drive; now you have to be insured to obtain health care, so that others do not have to cover the cost for you.

Surely we as Christians should wish to see everyone covered by health care, and to end the premature deaths and bankruptcies that lack of medical insurance inflicts on so many in our country. Other countries seem to afford medical care for all, I think we in this most blessed of countries can as well.

"Other countries seem to afford medical care for all, I think we in this most blessed of countries can as well."
Have you not read the economic struggle the Europeans are having with paying for their cradle to grave social programs? Do you not know how much the average individual pays in taxes there?
Also, I don't think you would really want to receive health care from some of those countries where their health care is an entitlement. Else, why do you think people from those countries want to come here for the important medical stuff?

"This is much like auto insurance, where you have to be insured to drive; now you have to be insured to obtain health care, so that others do not have to cover the cost for you." The difference is that it is not the federal government that requires car insurance to drive - states decide these requirements, which is completely compatible with the U.S. Constitution. But for the federal government to mandate health insurance is a gross violation of the 10th amendment, which says that any power not specifically deleted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. Health care is not a delegated federal power. In addition, the intention of the Interstate Commerce Clause was not to give the federal government umlimited power over private businesses and commercial industry; it was intended to prohibit the states from erecting trade barriers with one another.

Very sad to hear Liberty University is publicly wading into this debate. Do we really need Christians fighting against healthcare coverage for the underprivileged? Of all the things to fight for!

Julie - It's more a matter of who can afford NOT to have health insurance. Can you imagine what would have happened if you had some major health emergency when you were uninsured... you could have been financially ruined for life.

To think people should have the option not to have health insurance seems so primitive... it's a basic need with the cost of healthcare today. Of course health insurance is expensive - but insurance is necessary for much of life today (car, home, etc).

Julie - seriously... is this really about whether it's up to the individual states or the federal government? It seems like you just hate the legislation and are looking for a loop hole.

The end result of a more universal health care promises to be very expensive, I agree. But at the end of it all, there's a much higher probability that "the least of these" will be taken care of. Seems pretty biblical to me! (and yes, I know the ideal is for the Church to be doing this, not the government, but that's not happening!)

Sigh - so we are moving to providing health care to all.

Hmmmmmmm let's see if the sky now falls.

@Jon: "It seems like you just hate the legislation and are looking for a loop hole."
Nowhere and at no time does Julie sound like she hates anything. She sounds reasonable and simply wants things done correctly - in her opinion -according to the constitution. She is not even close to being wac like that guy above who keeps quoting Orwell.
Personally, I think the system could have been substantially improved without having the govt. basically take over the health care industry making it into a kind of utility.

Question: Who comes after you if you refuse to pay for health insurance? This is the question Bill O'Reilly asked Congressman Anthony Weiner (Dem - NY) three or four times and Weiner refused to answer. Why? Did he not know? He wouldn't say. He just grinned and said O'Reilly wouldn't let him talk. The guy just talked in circles.
Question: Why did our democratic representatives vote for something they didn't even read? Speaker of the House Pelosi stated that in order to know what's in the bill, they had to vote for the bill. Something's rotten here. This does not sound right.

From a canadian perspective, I cannot comprehend all the negative response to such a gift. Why are christians and church organisations opposing this? It looks very mean spirited. I second the other person who says, 'of all the things to resist'. Can you imagine giving an account of your life at the end and saying, 'God, I worked my hardest to make sure poor people did not get health coverage because the Federal gov't didn't have the right.' In our country, it was a Baptist minister who lead the fight for universal health care. He was recently voted our greatest Canadian in a nation wide poll. Imagine that. A christian is our country's greatest person because he fought for our health and wellbeing. That is quite a testimony.

Many of the comments supporting the Health Care bill rely on reasoning based on a myth: that Conservatives and Conservative Evangelicals do not give to or care about the poor. In fact, they give far more of their money, time and themselves than liberals do. This has been confirmed by a study by Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute. Here is a link on the subject by New York Times liberal columnist Nicoloas Kristof lamenting these findings: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html Try as you might, you will be hard pressed to find many articles on Google disagreeing with the study's findings. While so much of the Evangelical world has ignored to engage in what John Wesley called "social holiness," to the exent that the Church is engaging in it, it is the Evangelicals that are doing it. Much of the money given to Mainline charitable causes are caught up in red tape and bureacracy. After Hurricane Katrina, it was the Evangelicals who showed how charity should be done while the Fed. fumbled. As Peter told Ananius, the Church did not mandate that he and his wife sell their property, the Church never compels anyone to give to charity. It relies on individuals being obedient to the Holy Spirit. The poor in America will lose out as they have in government run health care systems in other countries. After the insurance companies are run out of business by having costs imposed on them they can not meet, the poor's medical treatment will become a budget item and their fates will be decided by bureaucrats. How can one be forced to pay for insurence if insurence costs imposed on their employer causes them to be let go? If a Canadian cannot understand the opposition to government run health care, that is because they have not been raised with the expectations of freedom Americans have and the blessings that have resulted from such freedom. Nor have they experienced the quality of care that is threatened by government run health care. Who would want a system where Miranda Richardson, after waiting one hour after her skiing incident, had to wait 3 hours to be seen by a qualified surgeon which so happens to be in the U.S. All over the world, in countries that have government run health care, those that can afford overseas treatment choose to come to the U.S., not to Canada.

@JG & Leslie: Well said. Two thumbs up!

@ Dan - Maybe "hate" was a strong word, but it sure seems like people are so against universal healthcare they'll do anything to try stop it. I think people are tired of all the stalling - America has been too long without universal healthcare - and just want it passed. Whose fault is this? Sure didn't seem like the republicans had any plan for healthcare!

@John H. Guthrie and Leslie - say all you want about the Canadian healthcare problems, but at the end of the day, it's the Canadians (and other countries with universal healthcare) who have a consistently longer live expectancy than the US (I think about 2 years on average, which is statistically quite high!).

@Leslie - Canada also has a constitution and Bill of rights... Please Christians... let's fight as much for others' rights at least as much as we fight for our own rights. Isn't this the biblical call?

Jon, you seem to misunderstand, we are not against universal health care. Rather, we are against government-ran health care. Big difference.

There are many solutions to lowering the cost of health insurance that do not involve introducing government bureaucracy into the mix. For example, increased competition is a tried and true method of not only lowering cost, but increasing quality of the product offered. So why not remove restrictions on interstate commerce regarding health care? Why not introduce comprehensive malpractice reform? Or better yet, if people do want government ran medicine, let them do it state by state instead of forcing it down everyone's throat?

A friend had to go to the county hospital emergency room a few weeks ago...and the experience showed that something really needs to be done about uninsured people. It's downright inhumane to make someone wait so long in such pain, but if one's situation is not life threatening to the triage team, it's first come, first serve.

With insurance, I think fewer people would end up in the emergency room.

(When I have a problem, I call my doctor, and something appropriate happens in a reasonable time and out of pocket expense. But, with my "pre-existing condition" and age, if I didn't have health insurance as a benefit, it would be pretty much unobtainable.)

As Republicans apparently have nothing to offer to rectify the worsening situation, which must be a public health hazard, and had plenty of time during the Bush administration to come up with something...Democrats have to try something.

I have a great idea for all of the big hearted Canadians and others who want us to socialize our medicine. First of all, we have an estimated 35 million illegal aliens. Obama's next step is to give them legal residence status. Since Canada is so big and kind-hearted, I think it is only fair that they take at least half of these people. You may not be aware of it, but they have destroyed our deserts and the land lying next to the border. You don't mind millions crossing over British Columbia and doing the same, right?

At least 1/3 of our prison population is made up of illegal aliens. Please take at least half of them to be fair also. Then, like Obama wants, provide all these 17.5 millions people with free health care. We are already giving their children free breakfasts and free lunches. You will need to make your elementary and high school classes bi-lingual and in some cases, tri-lingual. Give them free scholarships and tuition to your colleges.

Until you do at least your fair share with regard to the millions of people crossing our borders, you have a lot of gall telling us that we need to provide even more free services for them. Take your fair share of all them, those in prison, and those out of prison. Teach them in both languages and give in to all their demands. You DO want to be kind to them, right?

Gingrich: GOP can strangle 'Obamacare'
Suggests refusal to fund programs would shut it down

http://www.wnd.com/index.php fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131569

Sounds like a plan.

Overheard:
Batman (Prez O.) and Robin (Raham E.)
Robin: "Boy! That was our closest call ever! I have to admit that I was pretty scared!"
Batman: "I wasn't scared in the least."
Robin: "Not at all?"
Batman: "Haven't you noticed how we always escape the vicious ensnarements of our enemies?"
Robin: "Yeah, because we're smarter than they are!"
Batman: "I like to think it's because our hearts are pure."

Actually, Republicans had plenty of solutions. They were simply ignored and tossed under the bus by Pelosi, Reid and Obama because they wouldn't have required federal intrusion.

As I stated above, many Republicans proposed that we remove interstate restrictions on purchasing health insurance in order to increase competition. Competition is a proven method of not only lowering prices but increasing quality as well.

Others proposed comprehensive malpractice reform, which would have put an end to frivolous lawsuits, thus decreasing the cost of malpractice insurance and allowing doctors to lower prices.

Others still proposed that if these methods proved ineffective, that state governments be allowed to step into the fray with similar programs as proposed by the Democrats. This would have allowed the people to have the final say, instead of forcing it down everyone's throat.

All of these were possible alternatives to the federalization of health care that Republicans opposed.

Justin - so let me get this straight. The solutions you're suggesting will essentially achieve universal healthcare and not cost the average taxpayer any money? Really?

Do you really think Obama is so dedicated to "federal intrusion" that he'd ignore such simple solutions that would cost nothing and achieve the same results? Sorry, but something's missing.

"Do you really think Obama is so dedicated to "federal intrusion" that he'd ignore such simple solutions that would cost nothing and achieve the same results?"
Yes. Yep. Ummhuh. You betcha. Yes sirree, Bob.

Robin: "If we close our eyes, we can't see anything."
Batman: "A sound observation, Robin."


Wow, this is insane. Maybe the vitriol and rhetoric was similar when Social Security passed (or Medicare) but there was no blogosphere for ever American with an opinion to voice it, but the debate over this health bill is freaking me out.

A few points to add to the discussion:

1. This bill provides government subsidies for low income people to get insurance, where they could not afford it before. This seems to me to be the height of biblical government - caring for the sick and the poor. To hear supposed Christians talk about "aliens" and "welfare slackers" simply ignores a strong biblical principle.

2. Republicans had YEARS in power to bring about any sort of healthcare reform - the only bill of note that Bush passed was the Medicare Prescription Drug bill. The argument that they had these great solutions that weren't heeded by the big meanie Obama simply doesn't hold water. If you had them, why didn't you use them?

3. The private sector WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The argument that there's too much government intrusion is a canard. The banking crisis was caused by a LACK of regulation. The health care system we have was BUILT by the private sector. It's government's RESPONSIBILITY to step in to equalize industries when things get out of whack.

4. What's with all the right-wing whackos thinking Obama is the anti-christ? People either believe he's an intelligent thoughtful guy making the best decisions he can, or you think he's a foreign born muslim hell bent on running our country into the ground. Where's the reason? Where's the faith?

I'm exhausted. Bottom line - The Republicans had YEARS to do something about healthcare, and the didn't. Obama DID. Life will go on.


"To hear supposed Christians talk about..."welfare slackers" simply ignores a strong biblical principle."
You mean the one in I Thessalonians 5:14 "And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle,...." (NIV)
And/or II Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (KJV)

Prez BHO's favorite color is red - and lots of it.

The CBO (the "gold standard") released this:

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
"President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday."
"The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates."
Not to worry, tho. The Prez has it all under control.
[Note to children's children: Suck it up you little whiners and slackers, and get back to work.]

Rick wrote, "This bill provides government subsidies for low income people to get insurance, where they could not afford it before. This seems to me to be the height of biblical government - caring for the sick and the poor."

Speaking as someone who knows what it's like to be in desperate need, there can be no doubt that Jesus cared deeply for the least of these. He told His disciples, "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Feely have you received, freely give" (Matthew 10: 8). However, I cannot find any verse in the New Testament stating that it is the government's job to care for those in need. And in light of Jesus’ command to "give freely," can we really believe that He would endorse legislation that forces people to be charitable by taking their property - including the fruits of their labor - and giving it to others under the threat of deadly force?

Ultimately, the government enforces all of its mandates with the threat of violence. You comply, or you are arrested and prosecuted. If you resist arrest, lethal force is used against you. Is this the kind of "charity" Jesus taught His followers? Since government produces no wealth, it can give away only what it takes from others, either through the threat of fines and imprisonment or through brute force. When I insist that the government provide me with free or subsidized health care, I am really asking the state to steal from my neighbor to give it to me. Is there any biblical basis to believe that Jesus would condone this type of theft - that He would have people steal from their neighbors in order to receive a benefit?

Nowhere in Scripture did Jesus ever encourage people to look to the government to provide for their basic necessities, since this would elevate the secular state to the level of godhood. Instead of relying on government to meet our needs, we are to trust God to supply what we need. "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19).

As soon as believers start demanding that government provide for needs such as health care, food, or housing, they enter the realm of idolatry. The One who gave us the Lord's Prayer would never tell His followers to look to the state as the source of their daily bread or any other necessities that God promises to provide.

Jesus never threatened anyone with fines or jail time for refusing to give to those in need, and He did not appeal to Caesar to raise taxes to care for the poor, the sick, or the lame. Neither did any of the apostles or leaders of the Early Church.

Think about it: Is forcing our neighbors to be charitable really what Jesus had in mind when He preached about caring for the "least of these?"


I know that some are sticklers for documentation so here it is for the post just before Julies':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

Hi Julie,

I agree with some of your concerns about the idea of a "biblical government." But, I have a few thoughts to add:

Our government situation is very different than in Jesus' time - we are a democracy. Essentially, we are all the government. So, I think if we all vote with our consciences (informed completely by our worldviews), we are doing, as Christians, the right thing.

We do this all the time with other issues: we vote against abortion, we have laws against murder, etc. These are all biblical principles. Why not also have our government reflect our values when it comes to God's heart for the poor.

I think our role in a democracy is to vote consistent with our biblical worldview. As Christians, I think we should vote for broader healthcare and advocate for it. At the end of the day, we each get one vote; none of us are shoving anything down anyone's throat.

You mention: "However, I cannot find any verse in the New Testament stating that it is the government's job to care for those in need." Again, WE are the government, so I think our level of responsibility is quite a bit higher nowadays.

Thanks for your thoughts, Cristy. I agree with you that under the system of self-government our founders established, "we the people" are the government. However, that does not give us the right to use government force to require our neighbors to pay for other people's health care. Here are some thoughts of my own...

Currently, U.S. federal debt obligations exceed the Gross Domestic Product not just of the United States, but of the entire world. “The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy,” said economist John Williams. "In the seven years of GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not possibly be covered by any form of taxation. Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year." (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88851)

From both a logical and economic standpoint, there is a limit to how much money the government will be able to spend. If there aren't enough taxpayers to continue paying for our nation's already massive entitlement programs, the government will have to borrow the money, incurring more debt that will be passed on to future generations. Is this the way God would have us fulfill our Christian responsiblity to "do unto others"?

It is Constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises." The individual mandate "penalty" is a tax to cover health care, but if you have already purchased health care insurance you are exempted from the tax. Simple as that; they aren't forcing you to buy anything if you don't want to but you will have to pay the tax if you don't. Further, you don't even have to pay anything if you aren't above the poverty line or the cost of health insurance is more than 8% of your income.

Dan, thanks for the kind words.

Jon, the reason why people live longer in these countries is they have healthier life styles; they don't eat as much fast food as Americans do. One reason these countries were able to subsidize government run health care was because the United States was carrying the lion's share of the defense burden during the Cold War. As Leslie's comments on cancer screening indicate, on specific medical conditions, the U.S. may have a lower death rate than countries with government run health care, so one can't adequately base an arguement for government run health care arguement on over-all life expectancy alone.

Christy, if the people are the government, how does that justify the government taking the people's earnings and spending it on programs against the people's will, as what is happening with the health care bill. (By the way, the people are not the government; the people authorized the existence of this current government to act in the people's behalf in certain limited spheres, such as defense. The government and the people are seperate entities with different interests.) As for government programs reflecting God's heart for the poor, government programs have kept the poor enslaved for decades. As I wrote earlier, this health care bill will impose costs on the insurance industry that will drive it out of business; then the government will be the sole provider for health care and the lives of the American public will be merely a budget item. In the effort to curb costs, it will be the poor who will suffer the most as they will be denied treatment. As I wrote earlier, in Acts 5, Peter specifically stated that the Church compels no one to sell their property and give it to the poor. When Paul encouraged giving to those in need, he did not command it but strongly pleaded for Christians to give such aid. The history of Christian charity is that individuals involve themselves in the lives of the needy so that not only are immediate needs met but people are taught more productive lifestyles that keep them out of poverty with many becoming Christ's disciples in the process.

John H. Guthrie: I think your ideas of why people live longer in other countries is quite the stretch! I've lived in both Canada and America and can assure you that the "junk food" habits are not that different (although I'm guessing you have a specific stat to back this up)! Either way, deciding that's the real reason for the disparity in life expectancy seems less realistic than access to healthcare for every single person in Canada.

Canadians, each and every one of them, never have to think twice about going to the doctor. There's no forms to fill out, no copayments, no haggling with insurance companies over what is covered and to what extent things are covered. However, I agree with you that the reason Canadians live 3.12 years longer (according to the CIA website) than Americans is probably for various reasons, of which healthcare (especially access to preventative healthcare, which teaches people about healthier lifestyles) is one of the main factors. Anyway, this is all a bit off topic.

At last we know how the dems did the math to pay for O-Care!

Three elderly men are at the doctor's office for a memory test.

The doctor asks the first man, "What is three times three?" "274," came the reply.

The doctor rolls his eyes and looks up at the ceiling, and says to the second man, "It's your turn. What is three times three?" "Tuesday," replies the second man.

The doctor shakes his head sadly, then asks the third man, "Okay, your turn. What's three times three?" "Nine," says the third man. "That's great!" says the doctor. "How did you get that?"

"Simple," he says, "just subtract 274 from Tuesday."

(Just a voice laughing in the wilderness)

Coming straight from a Liberty student... I am so proud to call Jerry Jr. my chancellor! Great job on Fox this morning! Thank you so much for representing us! This has nothing to do with not caring for the poor and more to do with the many people in this country who live off the backs of the middle class just because they do not feel like working! Case in point...the woman in front of me at walmart today who paid for all her groceries in food stamps then walked out and got in a black mercedes. I am not heartless at all and neither is Liberty University. I just spent my Spring Break in Uganda holding the orphans and feeding the poor. Want to see poor? Go to Africa!!? These people are the ones who have nothing! And Liberty university is sending out 12 different missions trips all over the world this semester. There are WAY to many people in this country who are just sitting at home and not finding a job....do you know why? They don't have to...the government pays for there every need....out of my pocket no less!!!!!!!!

watch.

@Katie: God bless you and Liberty U.

Katie: You might recommend this to "you know who":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI

And also you might recommend to "her" that she practice what she preaches: You see on another thread she said she was going to visit Africa this next year, too. Uganda, I think. So here is another example of the hypocrisy of progressive liberal post modern fascism. Who is morally offensive, now?
(Try saying that 5 times real fast.)

(Just a voice laughing in the wilderness.)

Also, Katie: Remember what Jesus said in Matt. 26:6-11 "Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper,
7a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table.

8But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste?

(remind you of anyone?)

9"For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor."

10But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me.

11"For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."

If your mission trip was to glorify Jesus, then what you did was morally correct. Thank you for your willingness to follow Christ.

[You may not know this, but progressive liberals like to define for everyone else what is moral and immoral - even though they will turn around and do what they told you not to.]

Here's a little passage for their (proglibs) edification and admonition: Matthew 7
1"(A)Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and (B)by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

CL - Why won't you be tolerant? Progressive liberals are supposed to be known for their tolerance - not their crankiness. You should really apologize to Katie and encourage her instead of being critical.

Jon, I sent a response yesterday but it did not get through and I ran out of time on the public library computer I was using. Here are links to two articles on life expectancy in the U.S.- http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/11/life.expectancy.health.care/ and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200113.html

While both articles contain language friendly to government run health care, both are emphatic that to blame lower life expectancy in the U.S. as compared to countries with government run health care on the lack of universal health care in the U.S. is misleading. Heart disease, according to the Center for Disease Control is the leading cause of death in the U.S., with strokes diabetes and accidents in the top ten. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm These are causes due to life style or other factors not related to the kind of health care the U.S. provides. So you see, to link lower life exectancy in the U.S. to life style is not a stretch. One can list supposed advantages to government un health care, yet none of them justify placing the fate of Americans into the hands of government bureaucracies. I have read many accounts of Canadian health care and your account sounds a bit too one sided in my opinion.

You supporters of the new health care law just never seem to get it. You need to re-read Julie’s post where she quotes Jesus in Matthew 10:8:

“Freely you have received, freely give.”

There it is. That’s what God calls Christians to do: to give – not to steal.

What you Obama supporters have the right to do is to give – of your own wealth. What you don’t have the right to do is to steal from your neighbor and use his money for your cause, even if it’s a good cause. The end does NOT justify the means. Good causes must be supported in a good way. Sadly, you have chosen to support a good cause in a bad, ungodly way.
This is rather basic, but none of you Obama supporters seem to get it.

You don’t have the right to forcibly take your neighbor’s property (in this case, money) yourselves, and you don’t have the right to use the brute force of government to do it for you.
It is just as wrong to use the force of government to rob your neighbor, as it is to do it yourself. Jesus never supported such theft, but you people embrace it.

God said, “Thou shalt not steal.” That applies to governments as well as to people.

You who call yourselves Christians should be ashamed of yourselves. You should know better.

How many of you who have written in support of this law; who have said that we must help “the least of these,” have ever helped your neighbor with healthcare yourselves?

If the previous posts are an indication, you people who support the healthcare law outnumber those of us who don’t. Together, your combined wealth could pay for the insurance costs of those who want it but don’t have it. You have the power to give, but you don’t. Instead, you dishonored God and passed a law which uses the brutality of government to steal from those who don’t want to give to your cause. That’s wrong!

You’re using Satan’s ways to achieve God’s ends.

Those who do that are NOT serving God - they’re serving themselves.

To all those who are using Jesus' words "freely give" as a reason why we should not have Christians pay for others' healthcare:

Was that really the intent of Jesus' words? Funny that Jesus had no problem with his followers "rendering unto Caesar what was Caesars!" And that was to a government that certainly didn't have a lot in common with biblical principles.

To imagine that Jesus, who had no problem with paying taxes to Caesar (to support a nasty regime) would think it was "stealing" for a democratically elected government to tax its citizens to help the poor is ridiculous.

John H. Guthrie: As I mentioned in my earlier post, healthy lifestyles are a vital component of universal healthcare. Healthcare is not just reactive, it's proactive. Thus, it's not surprising that those with universal healthcare have healthier lifestyles: That's the result of years and years of (all) people visiting their doctors whenever they need to and being informed of how to life healthily.

Sorry that my view of the Canadian system appears one-sided. The Canadian system is definitely not perfect, but I think it is really great. As I mentioned before, I've experienced both systems. The biggest difference is not quality of care; it's access to care.

Side note: don't believe the commercials on t.v. about the "horrors" of the Canadian system - they're laughable in their inaccuracies! It really is great - not perfect, but great.

No one is being "forced" to support healthcare against their will anymore than any of us are being "forced" to support things currently being taxed for.

Relax, people. This is how countries work. Majority rules (Obama did run... and win... on the promise of healthcare reform).

Cristy wrote, "To all those who are using Jesus' words 'freely give' as a reason why we should not have Christians pay for others' healthcare: Was that really the intent of Jesus' words? Funny that Jesus had no problem with his followers 'rendering unto Caesar what was Caesars!' . . .To imagine that Jesus, who had no problem with paying taxes to Caesar (to support a nasty regime) would think it was 'stealing' for a democratically elected government to tax its citizens to help the poor is ridiculous."

Cristy, I think it's important to understand that when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," His audience (the Pharisees) would have understood something that many Americans today (even Christians) don't get: Everything in existence belongs to God, not Caesar. If we are supposed to render unto God what is God's, that means we are to give Him everything. If that's true, how much would be left for Caesar?

The point Jesus was making is that only God can rightfully lay claim to all that we have. From a biblical standpoint, no earthly government has unlimited taxing authority (though many governments no doubt would claim to have such authority), and no secular government has the right to tax us in order to provide the services that God tasked the Church with providing (caring for the poor, etc.).

Here's another overlooked issue in considering Jesus' answer to the Pharisees: Why did they consider their question a "trap"? Could it be that they expected Him to come out against paying taxes to Caesar and thus get in trouble with the Roman authorities? That seems to be the only explanation for why their question was a trap.

Furthermore, as one of your previous posts implied, there is no "Caesar" in America. The American people are the ultimate governing authority, and all public servants are supposed to work for us. The U.S. Constitution is the covenant between the American people and our political representatives; public officials who violate the Constitution by attempting to federalize private industries are therefore defying the law of the land.

Think about it, Cristy: Would the Savior who died to redeem us from the curse of the law really support legislation that threatens people with fines and jail time for failing to "give freely"? If believers are to give what they have decided in their hearts to give, and not under compulsion, why would Jesus seek to use government force to punish us for failing to give? Are we still under the Old Covenant of law, or under the New Covenant of Grace?

?????????????


Good Luck with that! This is another shallow and hollow post. For goodness sake; isn't there anybody else in CT other than Ms. Pullian to post something of more and better substance than this kind of stuff?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Christy, you are so wrong on so many points that this will take some time.

You wrote:
1) “we are a democracy”
2) “Essentially, we are all the government”
3) “none of us are shoving anything down anyone's throat.”
4) “Funny that Jesus had no problem with his followers "rendering unto Caesar what was Caesars!"”

First, we are NOT a democracy - we are a republic. That’s just basic American government, which you should already know from grade school (ok, I’m assuming you graduated HS). In a democracy, the majority always rules, and is able to oppress the minority. In a democracy, only the rights of the majority are safe. It has been rightly said that a democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner. Guess who’s dinner? In our republic, our rights are safer because we have a Constitution which protects all our rights, including those of minorities. Therefore, the majority cannot easily oppress minorities. Unfortunately, our rogue federal government no longer honors or obeys the U.S. Constitution, so we’re now a “de facto” democracy, although that is Constitutionally illegal. We’re living under a lawless, power-mad government which despises our rights.

Second, we are NOT all the government. We elect our government through voting, and they decide on which laws to pass. Sometimes they do the will of the majority, sometimes they don’t. They can also lie. I remember when President Bush promised “no new taxes!” and then raised our taxes. Presidents can really stink, as does most of congress today. So no, ‘we” are not the government.

Third, are you serious? Really? Don’t you know what’s going on at all? You have just shoved healthcare down the throats of all Americans, even those who opposed it. How on earth can you deny this blindingly obvious fact?

Fourth, our Constitution strictly limits what is Caesars, and control over healthcare is not a power given to Caesar in our nation. Therefore, Caesar has no right to legislate or mandate healthcare in any way. To do so is a violation of the covenant between us him – the U.S. Constitution. It’s a rogue, lawless act, which the Bible condemns. God isn’t lawless, and he wants us to have respect for the law. You who supported this federal healthcare takeover, don’t.

Really, I hope you can begin too understand the truth here, because you don’t seem to be open to it at all.

Hi Julie,

You wrote: "Would the Savior who died to redeem us from the curse of the law really support legislation that threatens people with fines and jail time for failing to "give freely"? If believers are to give what they have decided in their hearts to give, and not under compulsion, why would Jesus seek to use government force to punish us for failing to give? Are we still under the Old Covenant of law, or under the New Covenant of Grace?"

Yes, I can see a bit of the irony that you point out. I guess I just would never say that the "heartbeat" of Jesus was to ensure people never were forced to give. As I responded above, He seemed to have other things he was much more concerned about; seeing Americans paying higher taxes with the benefit of a dramatic change to how the poor are taken care of would probably not worry him too much. We are an incredibly blessed people; I'd love to think that, at least the Christians, could lead campaigns of generosity on this bill trying to convince voters that it's a good thing. But - ultimately leaving it to the voters to decide in future elections. The fall won't fall between now and then.

Ultimately, I don't see this as much different than any other taxes that people disagree with, except that the destination of those taxes in this case are actually really noble. There is a certain "community" aspect of being organized as a country and even our entire tax system is set up that the rich pay a bigger share than the poor. Are you also opposed to this, because I'm sure a lot of wealthy people do not like paying taxes and are therefore not "giving freely." The majority of Americans wanted Healthcare reform (and said so by giving Obama a mandate); I'm OK with that.


Christy (with an "h" :) )

Christie, the problem is that your arguments just don’t hold water. Your reasoning falls flat. Our values may be similar, as I’m a Christian and I also believe in helping the poor. I just don’t believe in robbing my neighbor in order to do that. Sadly, robbery seems to be ok with you.

You also don’t care to obey the governing law in our land – the U.S. Constitution. If you want federal government to be able to tax everyone to help the poor, then you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing that. That’s the only lawful way, but your side hasn’t done so. Instead, like the lawless bunch they are, they simply ignore the Constitution and do whatever they want. God hates that! Amazingly, you support this. God doesn’t. God takes covenants very seriously, but you’re treating ours like a joke. That isn’t the Christian way.

God opposes robbing people to help the poor. What part of ‘thou shalt not steal” confuses you? You think it’s ok to rob because your cause is just? Not so. Not even close.

As I stated before, you’re using Satan’s methods to accomplish God’s will. So far, you’ve shown me nothing to contradict that.

You’re not serving God in this – you’re serving yourself. I wish you could see that. Maybe if you actually prayed and asked God to show you the truth, he would. If you’re actually open to the truth, and you really want Him to show you, I believe He will.

Are you willing to do that?

Sorry John; we have completely different values. All the best to you.

Christy, it's sad that you're not willing to even ask God if you're wrong. Is that arrogance, or just pride?

Maybe you're right, Christy. Matbe our values are different. You seem willing to trample truth and justice in your so-called "caring" for the poor. You care nothing for the people you're hurting in the process.

That isn't God's way, but it's yours.

You're lawless and unconcerned with doing things God's way.

Yes, our values are different.

There has certainly been a lot of passion in this debate. I've been interested in peoples thoughts about the biblical perspective of gov't involvement in helping people. I would like to point out that God told Joseph to gather up the grain during the 7 good years of harvest so he could redistribute it to those in need during the 7 bad years. That sounds like a ruler(gov't) forcing people to pay up for their own good.(Therefore, not Satan's method) Secondly, if God has given gov'ts the power to punish if people break the laws(Romans 13) why could it not be argued he gives them power to help people. I can't see any significant arguement in scripture for denying people health care coverage.

Rob, the scriptural argument is that God isn’t a lawbreaker; that He honors covenants and expects us to as well. Under our covenant with the government – the U.S. Constitution – the federal government has no authority to legislate healthcare. It isn’t a delegated power, and therefore such power is reserved to the states and the people. This is also stipulated under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. This is the law of the land.

In passing this healthcare law, the federal government has violated its covenant with us. It has stolen our rights and usurped a power it doesn’t legally have. That is the definition of tyranny.
To be clear, this isn’t the first time the feds have done this. It has been happening for decades, and instead of God’s people opposing it, as they should, many have embraced it. Such actions are unChristian and unGodly.

John, as you know, millions of us stand with you, as we sadly see our once great republic fall with what we see as a marxist in power, taking the liberties our fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors fought so hard for.

We will see the loss of small buisnesses and a huge increase in unemployment.

This bill also took student loans away from the private sector and handed that over to the federal government. (Previous to this, he has grabbed up insurance companies, banks, and automobile companies).

page 1312 of the now signed-into-law Senate version of ObamaCare provides for funding of Obama’s private militia referred to as “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps” Sec. 5210. This “Corps” is given broad powers to control the US citizenry sector, giving it to the government to run.

There is much more to this than "health care". It is the government burning our Constitution, and the battle isn't over yet. This is also a spiritual battle, and we need to pray. There are so many who have lost their discernment, and THAT realy saddens me.

Jon, thanks for the mea culpa on the relationship between lifestyle and life expectancy. I do have a problem with maintaining that other countries have preventitive care when in the U.S. we have a better rate at stopping cancers through early screening (which many favoring government run health care would like to eliminate.)

Rob, your linkage of the famine in Egypt to government run health care is bad scriptural interpretation. God was working through the form of government governing Egypt at the time to achieve specific ends, such as removing Israel from the influence of the Caananites in the Promised Land before their ultimate destruction. In that particular case, Joseph was given favor by God, and became a pre-Christian type of Christ, so that the people of Egypt gradually gave all they had to Joseph's control: "So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharoh...The land became Pharoh's, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude..."(Gen. 47:20-21, NIV) If we follow your line of reasoning, we should give all that we have to the control of the government, when there is no crises and be reduced to servitude. In Gen. 47:23, Joseph allowed the people to have 4/5 of what had formerly been theirs. Obama and co. want the power to determine our medical treatment and ultimately our fate. They don't want 1/5 power, but 5/5 power. In Acts 11, when it was prophesied that their would be a famine in the entire Roman world, the Church didn't look to the Roman government to provide relief, but dealt with the matter themselves, and only collected aid for the Church in Judea itself. When Jesus said to render unto Caesar's the things that are Caesar's, Jesus was stating that the government has a legitimate sphere of action and that its activity must not exceed that sphere. The powers granted to the government over our medical treatment goes beyond that sphere. Government said it was helping people with the war on poverty, but it has done nothing but enslave people for over forty years. If you recall, God warned Israel against asking for a King. God warned them of the consequences: the king will take the best of everything for his own use and "...you yourselves will become slaves." Joseph could be trusted with power but a king could not. Joseph followed all of God's ways and could be trusted with ultimate authority; Obama does not follow all of God's ways and cannot be trusted with the authority he and his supporters seek.

Rob-The Hebrew people were under a Theocracy and God talked specifically to some of them, as in the case of Joseph. We are not a Theocracy, and don't have God telling our leaders what to do, we have a Republic with a Constitution.

Leslie, you’re right. Tyranny is overtaking this nation, with the help of a good portion of God’s people. The lack of discernment of the Obamunist “Christians” is amazing to behold. Its like they’re under a strong delusion, and reason and argument is useless against it. Christy is a good example of that, but she’s only one of many. In a way they’re like the “bringers” from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, actively working to establish evil in the land.

Yes, I believe it’s a spiritual problem, but I wonder if it’s already too late to save our nation. We’re very far gone already. Our government is rogue and lawless, and as long as people keep voting for one of the two major parties (I call them the DemoPublicans because they both love big government and power), nothing will change. This mess is as much the fault of Republicans as it is Democrats. Neither party has any respect for the U.S. Constitution or the rights of the people.

I believe Obama’s private militia will become the equivalent of Hitler’s Brownshirts. It’s amazing to see it coming like this. I wonder how many Germans saw the tyranny that was to engulf their land? Even with history as our guide, Americans are still blind.

Oops - sorry I spelled your name wrong, Christy! You wrote, "There is a certain 'community' aspect of being organized as a country and even our entire tax system is set up that the rich pay a bigger share than the poor. Are you also opposed to this, because I'm sure a lot of wealthy people do not like paying taxes and are therefore not 'giving freely.'"

There is actually a verse in the Bible that directly addresses your question. It's somewhere in Exodus (or possibly Leviticus), and it says, "The poor are not to give less, and the rich are not to give more." It is in reference to sin offerings, I believe (I will try to find the specific verse when I have more time). Even though the verse does not directly address taxation, I think the principle is the same: equality before the law. Also, there are numerous verses in the Bible that prohbit showing favoritism toward the rich or the poor.

I hope you will find it in your heart to understand that just because there are wealthy people who are opposed to paying higher taxes, that doesn't mean they aren't "giving freely." Many of them would prefer to give to private charities or through their churches. Through my work for a faith-based ministry, I know of a number of wealthy donors who give millions of dollars to missions and to church-based charities. When the amount of taxes they have to pay increases, there is less money for them to give away, and the recipients of their charity suffer greatly.

Sadly, for some reason you seem to think that the only way wealthy people are able to give to "the least of these" is through taxation. I guess you are unfamilar with the many philanthropic organizations and Christian ministrie that feely give to those in need, just as Jesus asked us.

After your farewell to John, I'm not sure you will check back here again, but I was glad to see you acknowledged that Jesus had other things he was much more concerned about - the salvation of souls. Thank you for sharing your heart about this issue. I wish you the best.

Hi Julie,

I am really encouraged that it seems like evangelical Christians outgive others. It gives me hope and I believe is an amazing witness to the world.

I, too worked with a faith-based organization and was astounded at the generosity of people. People giving generously is the ideal. I wish it were enough, though. Too many people in our wonderful country are without what the vast majority of countries in the world deem to be a basic function of the state - healthcare. As a reasonably wealthy person, I'm (relatively) happy to pay higher taxes if it means others will benefit. You're right, ultimately it will reduce some of my donations, but hopefully some of my donations won't be needed anymore.

Anyway, I think I'm done posting for a bit. Thanks for your thoughtful discussion and kind manner of debating. We still really disagree, but that's OK. I'll check in to see your response to this posting, but will let you have the last word! All the best.

I can relate to a lot of your sentiments, Christy. Believe it or not, there was a time when I was in favor of socialized medicine (that was long before God instilled in me the passion for liberty that I have today). At the time, I thought socialized medicine was the only way to ensure that all people, especially the elderly and the disabled, have access to quality health care. But when I studied the issue in depth, I learned about the harsh realities of rationing and other pitfalls of having the central government in control of health care.

Recently, I heard about someone in Australia (a friend of a friend) who is in her 40s and needs knee-replacement surgery. She was told she will have to wait until age 70 to have the surgery because chances are, she will need to have it again once she is older. Meanwhile, she is in constant, debilitating pain. The main problem with putting government in control of health care is that government bureaucrats decide what kind of treatment we receive.

It's nice to think that if our taxes are raised, others will benefit. But that is not necessarily the case, especially when we consider the corruption and inefficiency of our federal government. It's been well-documented that for every dollar the government collects in entitlement programs, only 25 cents gets to the intended recipients (I don't have the documentation on this at my finger tips, but I believe this figure was based on research by Citizens Against Government Waste).

On the other hand, Americans have been known to give more to charity when their taxes decrease. When tax rates were cut in the 1980s, charitable giving soared. http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-finance/individual-taxes-tax-deductions/797734-1.html

Like you, I have known some incredibly generous people in this country, many of whom are motivated to give because of their love for Jesus. To me, it seems terribly unfair to punish them by raising their taxes just because they are productive citizens. In fact, it really makes no sense to punish anyone for being productive, since that would tend to discourage productivity.

Thank you for being so gracious in allowing me to have the last word. As you can see, I've taken full advantage of that privilege! :)

God bless,

Julie

?????????

Interesting proposition, considering that no one in this forum has made such a claim.

Leslie, my point is to note that if God was ok with Joseph compelling all people to give up some grain for the common good, then he would not necessarily be against the same type of idea today. That is not to say that healthcare has to be done that way(though I think it makes sense), only that I don't think it is fair to argue against it on biblical grounds. If it is unconstitutional, your courts will decide that. But I don't think you can call it unbiblical, or ungodly with any real authority.

Rob, if it is unfair to to argue against health care on biblical grounds, then why is it then legitimate for you to invoke the example of Joseph in the Old Testament?

John, I am responding to all the previous comments I have seen that seem to be invoking biblial principles as an arguement against the health care reforms (eg/the comments about it being theft, and that God cannot support stealing). The only way to do this is to use the bible to show the other side of the coin. Since both sides of this debate can use biblical principles to argue their cause,then I don't thnk you can can call the reforms ungodly or unbiblical.

Rob, thanks for your reply. While I have a strong aversion to the actions of the Obama administration on this issue and have a tendency to express this in strong terms, I hope no Christian who disagrees with my remarks gets the impression I view the issue as a lithmus test on one's Christian commitment. I hope you and all the readers at CT have a good Easter.