Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 28, 2009
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Health Care and the Poor
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The plight of the poor has been a major bone of contention in the healthcare debate for months now. The morality of various approaches has also been hotly debated from all sides of the political universe – left, right, and middle. A recent statement I made at the National Press Club regarding abortion and what I called “a form of genocide” within the black community has sparked a great deal of controversy among clergy. In fact, I have been labeled by some African Americans as unconcerned about the needs of the poor.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a great deal of concern for the poor. I take the scriptural admonitions to take care of widows, orphans, and the impoverished in our midst very seriously. In fact my convictions and beliefs on healthcare are clearly spelled out in the book Personal Faith, Public Policy – which I co-authored with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Center. Time will not permit me to share our entire healthcare chapter with you, but allow me to share, briefly, my background and position.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

Growing up in South Avondale, the inner city of Cincinnati, Ohio, I am inextricably linked to the experiences and struggles of working class families. The lack of medical coverage among the working poor has escalated since the days of my youth. This lack of access to coverage is often most acute in communities of color, like the one in which I grew up. Healthcare reform is in a state of emergency, and I believe that the Obama administration’s goal of ensuring access to health insurance for those without it is an important and necessary one.

It is my stance that the community and the Church have a social and moral responsibility to play an active role in caring for the sick and the elderly. Jesus told us to care for the “least of these” and that’s what we are called to do. Non-governmental organizations such as Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities, and the local church itself have a unique role in meeting the needs of their respective communities. These groups have an understanding of the needs and goals of their neighborhoods, in real time, and can adeptly act to address them. The government’s role should be to assist in making it easier for the system to work, not control it.

I believe a potentially unintended consequence of decreasing insurance coverage costs is a decrease in the quality of care. The proposed bills have not been transparent about the mechanisms they will employ to ensure that a decrease in cost will not lead to a decrease in quality. In 2005, I entered a near fatal battle with esophageal cancer. Through high quality medical treatment and the grace of God, I am two years in remission. Excellent, expedited care facilitated my recovery.

It is not enough to provide insurance coverage without ensuring quality care. I believe churches and the community can function as an avenue to ensure that those in need of treatment and prevention have the opportunity to improve their life chances.

Under the proposed plan, I am concerned that others in dire straights will not be able to receive the speedy life saving care to which I was afforded. As we discuss the importance of providing affordable access to medical insurance for the millions who do not currently have it, I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that doctors and surgeons also need to be in a position to provide the best treatment measures for their patients.

Our responsibility, as pastors, is first to preach a holistic healing message to our members and then to provide services to our broader communities that promote wellness and prevention. The message of the Gospel must enrich the mind, soul, and body.

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that: The modern concept of a hospital dates from A.D. 331 when Constantine, having been converted to Christianity, abolished all pagan hospitals and thus created the opportunity for a new start. Until that time, disease had isolated the sufferer from the community. The Christian tradition emphasized the close relationship of the sufferer to his fellow man, upon who rested the obligation for care. Illness thus became a matter for the Christian Church.

Europe’s first medical schools came out of the Church. Not surprisingly, most cities still have hospitals that are attached to the faith community. The involvement of people of faith in this arena is both historic and pervasive. The development of hospitals in America followed a very similar path as the Christian community helped establish infirmaries that developed into hospitals. Although there is no biblical directive about modern healthcare, many Christians believe that concern about healthcare falls under the general principle of “loving your neighbor.”

With the community in mind, I would advocate a healthcare system that responsibly reaches out to the poor and needy. Unfortunately, the administration’s proposals (as it now stands) would result in lessening the overall quality of care. While this sounds acceptable in theory, it is impractical. The delay or denial of surgery or treatment for some patients would become a death sentence.

Let’s be responsive to the needs of the poor and advocate for a healthcare plan that includes both quantity and quality.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

The poor, of course
The poor should always be our first consideration when doing anything. We should not consider one step in any direction without the primary concern being the poor.

We should provide the poor with money, clothing, Food Stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, transportation, education, health care, tax breaks and even a free turkey for Thanksgiving.

The poor are now our nation's royalty. And we are constantly trying to create new ways to serve them. And if we have to sacrifice the nation as a whole to accomodate the poor -- then so be it.

Individual Responsibility--not govt
Well said, Bishop Jackson! I take great issue with the so-called Christians who stand-up and make great pronouncements about "we have an obligation" and "we have a responsibility" to care for the poor.

The government has no such obligation or responsibility. We as individuals do...and do give generously to our churches and charities. In most sectors, the church was providing tremendous care and resources prior to the govt assumption of the role (just look at the state of Massachusetts and it's pushing the Catholic church out of the child adoption role). Now, consider how much more could be done without the govt confiscating large portions of your income in the name of "helping the poor" -- further, if you note what the government currently considers to be the "poverty level" you see how politicized this truly is.

From the libs, you'll hear comments about "well, if churches & charities were doing such a good job, why did the govt have to take over?"...and that's horrific logic (but you'll hear it nonetheless). It's about politics and power...if you assume the role of provider, you (the govt & political parties, in particular) have created a base of people who are indebted to you...and will vote for you. If you continue to enslave them with greater and greater handouts, you expand and solidify your hold on them until there is no other choice. This is the worst tyranny of all.

Ind Responsibility -- cont
I also hold that if you remove govt limitations and suffocating over-regulation, you allow for private sector innovation to step-in and begin offering solutions to these problems.

Just look at how much of the total cost of health care right now is due to the cost of the bureaucracy required by the govt. Also, consider that we who pay our hospital bills are paying for those who don't as a part of the bills we pay...and you realize just how low the actual cost of our various medical procedures are and how much we could be saving if the govt were out of the healthcare business.

Look what govt intervention has gotten us with all the student loan guarantees/college tuition assistance. Once upon a time, an average person could go to college and pay their way through without being saddled with massive student loans for the next several decades of their life. Once the govt began "leveling the playing field" by offering grants, guaranteeing student loans, and myriad taxpayer-funded scholarship/handout programs, the colleges absorb that and continue increasing tuition (all the while, maintaining massive untouched endowments)...govt involvement only increases the cost...not increase efficiency/ performance.

Get govt out of the way...

Freelaoders vs. Truly Needy

The government difines poverty based on income. That is not a good way to do that. Wealth is what you own and not what you make.

Also, the government lumps the "poor" altogether. Again, that defies logic and common sense. People refusing to work when they are able to do so should not receive health care or any other welfare from the government.

Funds to assist the truly needy are always limited. The freeloaders are effectively stealing from the truly needy when they accept welfare if they are able to work but refuse to do so.


I believe it was Adam Smith wrote that,

even on a strictly economic basis, the govt should plan to provide "social services" for only 15% of those who may be in need on a temporary basis. His model called for stop-gap measures ONLY.

The rest should be provided by non-govt sources, such as churches, a private institutions.

D G_KY makes a VERY good point... "Freelaoders vs. Truly Needy" and THAT really should be the only issue.

The state of HI is a perfect example. Their "CHIPS" program (or whatever it was they called it on HI) started out to be for children of the needy ONLY.

At some point, the rules were changed, and ALL CHILDREN became eligible, at which point, parents began to remove their children from their own private health insurance policies, and enrolled them in HI's CHIP program.

The result has been catastrophic! The program is failing, quality of health care for children on that program has diminished, and the state is in financial question.



ANYONE HEAR
from peggy the moocher lately?

Obummer hook her mortgage up through ACORN?

Another
Corrupt
Obama
Run
Network

GunnyG
Apparently when she got that full tank of gas, she took off and hasn't been heard of since.

Jackson offers no solution for the poor
The best solution would be the free market, not government. Private charity would be more equitable in a free market and would be able to provide more than if government intervened. Current government interventions in the medical marketplace have driven up prices. Private charity helps the deserving needy, not those scaming the system. Government welfare is provided to any that meet the criteria, even if they've exhibited nothing but criminal behaviour and contributed nothing during their lifetimes.

We should remember, that there is far more demand for health care than there is supply. And what some would consider necessary care, others would consider a waste of money. But with government provided medical care, everyone will want the best possible care, but no one will want to pay for it.

As One of the Poor,
As a person who has been poor and who, due to the recession which nearly wiped our our business, is again poor, I want the government to butt out.

If the federal government returned to its Constitutionally-enumerated mandates the situation of the poor would improve dramatically. No longer would able-bodied people who could work if they wanted to be able to collect money for sitting around.

No longer would businesses be chained to senseless hiring practices enacted by officials who've never run so much as a lemonade stand and who have less understanding of fundamental economic principles than kids learn from trading their collectible cards.

Doctors would be free to set policies they choose, allowing flexibility and creativity about payment plans, barter of goods and services, and charity work (today doctors who accept Medicaid/Medicare CANNOT legally offer free or discounted care no matter how much they might want to).

Patients could choose from the options offered with competition driving down the cost of medical care in the same way it drives down everything else. Flatscreen, HDTV, anyone?

And private charity could and would take up the slack without being paralyzed by red tape.

It's not only the poor now!!
The liberalites now want the illegals in on it! Sure right now they say if they can afford it. You let the government option pass and see how soon they abandon that wording!!!!

Huh
Was there a single idea in here that would result in caring for the poor? It certainly would be nice if the poor were helped. But Jackson does not seem to have any actual proposals for doing so. His only actual statements with regard to the poor is that he doesn't want helping them to get in the way with the care for people like himself.

Why does this read like he wants to help the poor as long as it doesn't actually involve doing anything that would help the poor.

ObamaCare Suffers Even In HCAN Poll 1
A new poll commissioned by Health Care for America Now — the leftist Borg astroturfing government-controlled healthcare — delivers still more bad news for Democrats.

The HCAN poll shows that the individual mandate is opposed in swing House districts by 60 to 34 percent. (FWIW, a recent Zogby poll had opposition to the mandate closer to 70 percent in swing districts.)

However, in a shocking coincidence with HCAN’s agenda, “[r]equiring everyone to buy and be covered by a health insurance plan with a choice between a public option and private insurance plan” is supported in swing districts by 50 to 46 percent.

The poll shows that nationally, opposition to the mandate is greater — and the supposed support for the combo is also greater. The supposed support for the combo is actually worse and more polarized in swing districts than nationally.

Moreover, as the HuffPo’s Sam Stein admits, “the polling that the group sponsors should be taken with a grain of salt. Other pollsters, in particular, have criticized the use of the word ‘choice’ in questions about the public plan.” Stein avoids expressly reminding his readers that taking the word “choice” out of polling on the proposed government-run plan causes support for the so-called “public option” to plummet into the forties. Stein has written about this, making the omission all the more glaring.


ObamaCare Suffers Even In HCAN Poll 2
Prior polls show that people are unwilling to pay less than $10 weekly to have a public option. Support also craters when people are reminded that the government-run plan is a Trojan horse for single-payer, Canadian-style healthcare.

The White House and lefties like Rep. Dennis Kucinich believe the “public option” is dead. Indeed, Kucinich thinks the Blue Dogs are doing the White House’s bidding on the “public option.” Inch-deep support and intense lobbying against it would seem to be fatal.

In sum, when Mickey Kaus asks whether voting for ObamaCare might be suicidal for Democrats, he is asking the right question. When even HCAN is delivering bad news dressed up as good propaganda, the answer becomes even clearer.

the ILLEGAL alien care shell game

(slight edit of a recent post)

Dr. Y

Location: CA

The Left's bills only exclude PAYMENT for ILLEGAL aliens!!

The bills state money will not be spent on health care for ILLEGAL aliens. That's how they get their free health care today-- ER's are required by federal law to treat ILLEGALS, BUT there is no means for these ER's to get paid.

The same type of Catch-22 will be included in ObamaCare-- the requirement to treat people, without getting paid for the treatments. That way they can pretend to satisfy both sides BEFORE the bill is approved.

In the end, they have every intention of finding someone else to pay for health care for ILLEGALS (probably out of those evil profits some hospitals make), without any attempt to reduce the number of ILLEGALS streaming into this country.

ILLEGALS and health care

ILLEGAL aliens displace Americans for a lower wage, and surely no benefits, in construction, food service, and hospitality services. The ONLY TRUE beneficiaries are the LAWBREAKING, miscreant employers and the ILLEGAL aliens themselves-- ALL Americans then suffer the myriad concomitant socio-economic costs.

Is an armed robber excused because he wants?

We cannot excuse ILLEGAL aliens because THEIR guvments are corrupt and THEIR guvments/economies are plutocratic and despotic.

Our unemployment now officially approaches 10%, and underemployment is about 16%-- a swell time to have 12-15 million ILLEGALS in many jobs that the young and low-skilled would gladly take.

Now comes health care... the Left intends to treat ILLEGALS at YOUR expense one way or the other, BUT DOES NOT INTEND for their new big guvment voters to pay for it... such a deal for YOU, Middle America!

Mother of 4 wrote:
Doctors would be free to set policies they choose, allowing flexibility and creativity about payment plans, barter of goods and services, and charity work (today doctors who accept Medicaid/Medicare CANNOT legally offer free or discounted care no matter how much they might want to).


WRONG... Doctors do not set policy. Right now Insurance companies do. They decide what is paid and what is not, they decide what fees are "reasonable" not doctors.

If a person comes to the office with no insurance, then the doctor is free to do as he wishes, he can charge what he wants, he can do it for free, but I don't know many doctors who work on the barter system.

But as long as insurance is involved, they - the insurance companies - make the rules. You have no idea how many people come to our office thinking they have great insurance. Only to find out that the "fee allowed by the insurance company" is exactly the amount of their co-pay.



Patients could choose from the options offered with competition driving down the cost of medical care in the same way it drives down everything else. Flatscreen, HDTV, anyone?

Chose from what options? Options from FOR PROFIT insurance companies?

As for the price of Flatscreen tvs.. poor analogy.

First, you can chose to buy or not to buy a TV.. if you are seriously ill, you do not have that choice?

And, as the need/want for TVs goes down, so does the price. The need for Health care is not going to go down anytime soon. So, neither will the cost.

Free Clinics.. thats the answer!
Over the weekend, thousands of Texans attended what is being called the “largest free clinic ever held in the United States” to get health care they otherwise could not afford. ABC-13, a local Houston station, reported that the event showed that there is an “epidemic” of people without proper health coverage in Texas:

It’s an epidemic here in Texas and Harris County — people without health insurance. On Saturday, the uninsured lined up to get their needs met.

More than 2,000 people came to Reliant Center to see doctors for free. Many of the people we talked to can’t afford health insurance, especially in the rough economy. Some say it shows the need for health care reform.

Last month, more than 1,300 patients showed up during a single weekend at a free dental clinic held in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

A few days later, nearly 1500 people attended every day of an eight-day free clinic Remote Area Medical set up in Los Angeles.

Jackson doesn't have to defend himself.
When a liberal asks a conservative what they would do for the poor as far as health insurance is concerned, the first thing that should be said is that stealing from one and giving to another is no solution. Health care stinks for the poor everywhere, even in countries with "universal coverage". Resident aliens don't qualify for government health care in European countries unless they qualify through their job. And where does Europe get their workforce? Resident aliens! Get away from the tourist havens and Europe is littered with slums populated by the families of Filipinos,Turks and North Africans.These people may or may not qualify for health care during the time of employment, but they absolutely do not qualify for social security-like pensions despite the fact that they--unlike our illegal aliens--are perfectly legal and registered.And Europe is going broke just covering its natives, while telling us that we don't care.They, like the liberals, think "caring" is just for show.

Planned Parenthood's Black Genocide

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the N*gro is through a religious appeal.

We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the N*gro population.

and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood
December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestions for the N*gro Project," in which he recognized that "black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot."

He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

'I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time N*gro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored N*groes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the N*gro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people.'

Another project director lamented:

'I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision.'

The leading abortion provider 'Planned Parenthood', has chosen to exploit blacks by locating 94% of their abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations.

reply to Luna
No, Luna, free clinics can't be the answer, not, at least, if you're a conservative. From a conservative standpoint, all those people who flock to the 'free clinics' are ultimately nothing but a pack of freeloaders, taking advantage of the health care professionals who are haunted by liberal-induced guilt. Let them all get decent jobs so they can pay top dollar for health care. Remember, if you believe in a free market approach to health care, you're committed to the position that the quality of health care should be based on the amount of money you have to spend, which is based on the amount of money you earn. The less money you have, the worse your healthcare should be, again, if you believe in conservative principles.

Now as for our columnist. I note he does not tell us how his high quality healthcare was paid for. Did some religious community group get together to pay for it? Or isn't it more likely that Jackson makes enough money as a conservative to afford a great insurance plan?

A little less hypocrisy from people on the Right would be refreshing when it comes to healthcare issues.

Help the Poor to Not be Poor Anymore,
As one of the poor I don't want to be put on the government dole and locked into my poverty forever.

I want to not be poor anymore.

And the way to prosperity is through the free market, not the government handout.

Slash taxes to get the economy moving and get rid of the cumbersome burden of red tape that trips people up every time they attempt to take a step.

When those among the poor who *will* work prosper they can afford their own health care (health insurance and health care are not the same thing).

Additionally, they will have the money to give to charity to care for those who *cannot* work.

As for those who *will not* work, they deserve to suffer the just consequences of their indolence.

Fixing Health Insurance Problems
The solution to America's health insurance "problems" (I use the words cautiously since polls continually reveal that most people are happy with the insurance they have), is to,

A. Decouple insurance from employment.
B. Reform the tort system.
C. Permit interstate competition.

Imagine a health insurance market where companies had to compete directly for our business just like auto insurance companies. If you think Geico is too expensive you can see what Progressive has to offer. If you don't like the Progressive plan you might find what you want at State Farm.

Imagine a person like me, self-employed and unable to pay the outrageous rates for personal insurance, being able to approach a doctor and make an arrangement where we provide business services at a deep discount and a share in the vegetables from our garden in exchange for his medical services for routine care.

Imagine doctors themselves competing based on cost, training, staff, equipment, hours, ... anything that might make them more attractive to a given type of potential patient so that when a person moves to a new area the question he/she asks is not, "Which doctor takes my insurance?" but "What kind of doctor do I want to work with?"

Making the purchase of medical care JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SERVICE WE BUY is the kind of reform we really need.

Luna
I'll bet those coming to the "free" health and dental care can buy cigarettes,booze,cable tv and payments on their new car.

You didn't mention that part.

Gestell

In Louisiana, we have had a Charity Hospital System for decades for the poor and people without insurance. They get free care from some of the best doctors here. I pay taxes for it and I don't mind. I just do not want any government screwing around with my health insurance, which I, like the vast majority of Americans, want to be kept as it is.

Poor People
In my opinion, the right-wing Christian response to poor people has been, shall we say, disappointing. Let's face it, most poor people are poor because somewhere along the line their decision making has not been that great. This gives the "personal responsibility" fans a great excuse to ignore Christ's edict about helping the poor. In the healthcare debate, their attitude has largely been, "I am happy with the current arrangement. Any change could make things worse". That may be true, but ignoring millions of uninsured is not exactly the Christian thing to do.

Ms. St. Denis ObamaCare Suffers Even In
Hot Air

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/28/obamacare-a stroturfers-deliver-bad-news-for-democrats/

It takes about 1 minute to discover the re-packaging of RWC info.

UncleBig

Silly fool, what on Earth would I have to do with the RWC? Good grief, I am a registered Independent and voted for a Democrat in November - my friend, Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Grasping at straws, again, eh?

Denise
"we have had a Charity Hospital System for decades for the poor
...
I pay taxes for it and I don't mind. "

That's not really a Charity Hospital since you are paying taxes for it.

And am I sure the Charity Hospital is filled with social workers who know exactly which Medicaid form needs to be filled out and they will get paid by the government.

Many Hospitals depend on charity contributions, it was a yearly ritual for my wife and I to attend the annual charity ball. Rich folks love to see their names on a new children's wing and there nothing wrong with that.







Mrphios

My religious beliefs do not factor into my position on the Constitution, which is all that matters to me in politics. I don't nor do I wish to force my beliefs on anyone. Further, I will not allow anyone to tell me that my faith dictates that I do certain things. My faith is personal and I refuse to allow it to be manipulated by politicians, who I detest anyway.

Ken Burns - National Parks
Ken Burns always tells a great story. It's one that replays thru our history. The forces of greed against the needs of the people. In the early 20th century the railroad, developers were trying to rip off the public by becoming gatekeepers to the great natural beauty of this country. Today it's no different. The insurances companies, and other parasites feel they have the right to rip off the public as gatekeepers to health care.

UncleBig

I am surprised that you aren't singing the praises of the first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, who had little regard for the rights of citizens to own private property.

Mod Mark

Of course it is a Charity Hospital System. That is what the damn thing is called and has been for DECADES. I pay for it and I don't mind. It is charity for those who are poor and do not have insurance.

The "evil" rich do not have their names on wings.

No other state has what we have in Louisiana.

Ms. St. Denis
I enjoy the debate. But I have never posted anything that was not created by me as I write it.

UncleBig

I post far more of my own work than I do that others. Many people here enjoy passing along articles. If you don't, that's your prerogative.

Guess What?

If the Federal government seized all of the annual profits earned by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, it would have just enough money to pay for current government-run health care programs for all on ~11 days.

BTW: Insurance companies earn a profit of about 3.2% of sales while Mircosoft takes in over 22%.

UncleBig


Ken Burns did what he and all liberals always do. He delivered a biased view of everything he covered. The tired old tale of the Evil White Man and the Noble Savage. Those horrible White tourists. The endless Greed of the Robber Barons. And of course, NOT ONE WORD about the gigantic contributions to the National Parks by the likes of Rockerfeller,Firestone, Mellon or Vanderbilt.

How Come?

It was posted above that leaving people without health insurance "is not the Christian thing to do."

........... and I thought libs believed in separation of church and state......

How come libs contradict themselves much of the time?

Mrphios - You must watch MSNBC

Government policy should not be based on Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any religious edicts as you seem to support.

I also don't know anyone, including union workers with "Cadilac plans", that are happy with the current situation. Most everyone agrees Healthcare cost are too high.

The proposals we see coming from the Liberals make no effort to reduce costs other than to cut benefits for seniors.

Conservative Christians are perfectly willing to help the "helpless". They are not always willing to help the "clueless".

The proposals we see coming from the Conservatives will actually reduce costs for everyone. (Poor and Cadilac Plan holders)
Liberals oppose those.

Most everyone agrees people should not be forced into bankruptcy because of healhtcare costs. A low cost Catastrophic National Heathcare Plan would prevent that for the poor, un-employed, or low income uninsured worker.
Liberals oppose Catastrophic Healthcare and have voted down every attempt to add that option to Healthcare reforms.

Now you know what MSNBC never told you.

Mrphios
"In my opinion, the right-wing Christian response to poor people has been, shall we say, disappointing. Let's face it, most poor people are poor because somewhere along the line their decision making has not been that great. This gives the "personal responsibility" fans a great excuse to ignore Christ's edict about helping the poor. In the healthcare debate, their attitude has largely been, "I am happy with the current arrangement. Any change could make things worse". That may be true, but ignoring millions of uninsured is not exactly the Christian thing to do."

Where there are the crippled and others who are poor because they cannot provide for themselves, we have been a society more than willing to "help" them as Christ so demanded.

We are not however, obligated to 'serve' the poor. Nor did Christ instruct us to keep the poor in beer, cigarettes and NFL licensed apparel for their children.

And going out and destroying our system of medical care will not help anyone -- especially the "poor."

Speaking as a poor person who gave up
health insurance years ago, because I felt I was subsidizing others' healthcare, I resent the notion that I should be forced to carry health care once again.

Since I have determined not to suck at the public trough, and have been forced into self-employment, I have been punished by the government, who continue to tax me unfairly, while handing out benefits to people who seem to live better lifestyles than myself.

It is shocking to me when I hear even fellow conservatives suggesting that people like me should be forced to purchase health insurance, just as I am forced to purchase car insurance, so that the insurance companies will have enough money to pay for the healthcare of others.

What is this but just another form of welfare?

How can we ever expect for the market to work on the health insurance prices, if people like me can't cancel out policies which have become too expensive?

Furthermore

We are only required to purchase Liability Auto Insurance, not Comp & Collision (except by agreement with the bank that loaned you money to buy your car).

I already pay enough taxes to subsidize the healthcare of others. Let the government stop already with the wild spending.

One more thing

If the rich liberals of the world want to start charity hospitals to take care of poor people, let them give up some of their luxuries, take up a collection at the Malibu Colony, and pay for it themselves.

I am sick of them raiding my meager funds to pay for their charitable schemes, like Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland enlisting the neighborhood to help them put on a show, so that they will be the center of attention.

I have literally nothing to give, and have to pay my taxes in installments, and yet these wealthy fools want more and more and more out of my moth-inhabited pockets.

Let the Kennedys and the Rockerfellers and the Barbra Strisands pool their resources and set up private charities, and leave me alone!

WHAT'S RIGHT
Poor American CITIZENS should receive health care and government programs (whether they work well or not) are already in place for that purpose.
What's NOT RIGHT is providing health care to people who are 'BREAKING the LAW'. So if the liberal left radicals want to give 'illegal aliens' (who are breaking the law) health care, then arrest and put them in jail where they'll get their free health care and be where, under law, they should be OR DEPORT THEM.

The POOR have Medicaid !
As of yet, I have not seen any poor person that was turned down by medicaid. The government sets a rule of how much you can make in a month which in Texas is $1200 a month plus about $300 of food stamps.

Those who need medicaid that make $1300 a month are turned down.

How can someone making $1300 a month make insurance payments,house payments, and higher utility payments and eat too?


I say raise the minimum amount of income on those who need medicaid. But they won't do it because they need the issue of "public healthcare" to progress their Socialism.

Medicaid works well if it is not abused everytime someone gets a sniffle.


WWJD?

Another reply to the poster who claims it is not Christian to provide health insurance to the poor.

I beleive that Jesus Christ helped the needy directly. I do not believe HE sent money to Roman tax collectors hoping it would eventually be used for the needy.

Also, I recall the tithing rate is 10% and not the conficatory rates used by the IRS.

DG

WWJD? He would begin by not calling a human, Caesar, his Messiah and begging for Savior Socialism.

Mrphios,
After having fed the multitudes twice, Christ then rebuked those who came to him only for the food.

Paul stated clearly in 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

Christianity is about calling people to repent of their sins and follow Christ. It is not about enabling people to continue in the sins of sloth and irresponsibility.

The problem with the government
In health care is that people believe that the politicians actually care about them and their quality of life, when their first priority is and has always been their ability to be re-elected. Nobody cares about your families well being as much as you do, and abdicating responsibility for such to the government only reduces your ability to provide the things that your family needs most. When individuals are unable to meet their needs, those closest to them (family, friends and neighbors)are in the best position to know of and provide for their needs. The unbridled growth in the federal government has done more to deteriorate the social fabric of communities, than anything. By taking involuntary donations, in the form of taxes, redistributing them to others, the government robs us of the pleasure and reward of voluntarily helping our neighbor. They create the illusion that we don't need or rely on our neighbors, just the government. In so doing they have done more to break down the social fabric of our society than anything else.

It's a cliche
But still true. America has the richest poor in the world. Truly poor people are usually thin (lack of food tends to do that to you) but a lot of our "poor" are fat. I have customers who buy $500 worth of food with food stamps, then use their cash to buy video games.

I used to work in health care. People who think nothing of spending $100 at the beauty salon scream at a $30 copay for a doctor visit.

I am certainly what most consider poor. Yet I have health insurance. How? I have a job that provides it. I pay the exorbitant sum of $16 every two weeks for it. My out of pocket limit is $2000. I could have more coverage if I chose to pay more, or less coverage if I wanted to pay less. Yet my employer is usually vilified as oppressive to it's workers.

Oh, and Globug in TX? I make less than $1200 a month and do not qualify for Medicaid. I actually pay my own bills and even have enough to have satellite tv and broadband internet. I am able to live this way because my husband and I made the decision to live simply and inexpensively. I have no mortgage because I don't insist on living in a house I can't afford.

supply vs demand
The Rev. Jackson wants more help for the poor! How does he propose to increase demand but not the supply of Doctors/Nurses, ect. He also wants to decrease cost (impossible) and we, the average people absorb the increased costs through increased taxes. How many of these poor have cable TV, internet, and cell phones? Yet they cannot afford the $60.00-$80.00 to see a Doctor? I had an unemployed friend of mine tell me he considered the internet a necessity!! I sthink many have their priorities upside down.

Never happen!
Free market and charity is the moral solution for health care as well as the economic one. Too bad our legislators will never let it happen.

Government meddling over the years has distorted the medical insurance market into a dysfunctional hybrid of political, industrial, medical, employer and consumer forces. Our legislators have politicized and regulated health care into the mess we find it in.

Unfortunately, legislators need to justify their existence by perpetually legislating us out of the messes they legislate us into; so, I’m not optimistic about “Health Care Reform.” Politicians will never allow something so readily demagoged as “health-care” to be sold like apparel and appliances.

reply to St. Denis, etc.
Of course, you've just conceded my point: there is no such thing as 'free' health care. You and other taxpayers subsidize those lazy poor people who get 'free' services from the hospital. As a conservative, you should be outraged. You may (or likely may not) know that the conservative icon Ronald Reagan signed legislation in 1986 that requires hospitals to provide emergency treatment for(or at least stabilize the condition of)everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. That looks pretty much like socialism to me, bucko. So, let real conservatives vow to repeal this left-wing law when Palin wins the next presidential election. Then I'll believe you people are worth taking seriously.

The basic principle for health care in a conservative system is: health care, if you can afford it. If not, too effing bad for you.

Big Business Socialism: Anathema
Big Business Medical Socialism is anathema to the poor. It isn't good medicine, and it fails to encourage independance. It fails to teach people what they need to know in order to stay healthy.

The old African-American diet usually consisted of lots of greens, as well as lots of fat. But people who ate that diet did very well. Little or no sugar, lots of hard work. Now, that diet is nearly extinct. And the government is teaching the wrong message: carbohydrates good, fat bad. Fat is essential, even saturated fat, and to eliminate it is foolish and dangerous.

They replaced natural fat - like butter - with unnatural fats (partially hydrogenated oils, also known as trans fats.) Bad experiment, conducted on a massive scale.

But it's not just the poor who should be wary: the lessons of Tuskegee and other government experiments upon living human beings should cause us ALL to want to limit our exposure to those parts of the medical system who profit at the expense of our health - and sometimes even at the expense of our lives.

Gestell
"The basic principle for health care in a conservative system is: health care, if you can afford it. If not, too effing bad for you." That would explain your earlier statement that Reagan promulgated the law mandating medical care for everyone regardless of their income. You're claiming that Reagan was a liberal, since conservatives just don't care about the poor.

Conservatives are concerned about the socialization of medical care and the creation of a huge government bureaucracy to administer it. Those two ideas have never had a good track record for efficiency, quality of service, and humanity.


reply to Robert
Reagan was not at all a consistently conservative president; he bargained effectively with liberals, failed massively to pursue the agenda of religious conservatives, increased the federal debt by galactic proportions, and, on emergency health care, swallowed liberal premises hook, line, and sinker.

As for health care being socialized, that happened long ago. Large-scale group health insurance plans, gigantic health care providers, Medicare, and Medicaid have been around for a while. FYI, the whole concept of "insurance," any insurance, is that costs and risks are socialized. That what it means when you have lots of people paying into an insurance plan and (at any one time) some smaller number of people getting their claims paid. If this idea repels you (as a conservative) then your real argument is against the very existence of insurance. Are you willing to go that far?

Gestell
You confuse what Reagan was able to do as President with what an equally conservative Congress would have done with his support. He certainly did not 'galactically' increase the deficit. Conservatives have no problem with insurance. We also have no problem with extending medical care to the poor, which is what Reagan did (and Carter did not). What we have a problem is with creating a huge government entity to replace a system which works very well and has a high rate of customer satisfaction. If you want to improve the medical care system, introduce more competition into the insurance business by allowing interstate writing of policies and limiting the State government's ability to so narrow the definition of what is acceptable insurance that more creative solutions cannot be used. End medical malpractice lawsuits for anything more than actual loss of wages and expenses plus $500,000. That will send John Edwards back to preparing divorces and representing burglars. Of course, Democrats will not sponser these solutions because they do nothing to make people more dependent on government.

Gestell

I really wish that you would stop referring to me as a Conservative. I am a registered Independent, who happened to have voted for a Democrat last year -- my friend, Sen. Mary Landrieu.

It would help you immensely if you stop assuming facts not in evidence.

Gestell

I am not your "bucko". I am a woman. Also, I was too young to have voted for Reagan. As for the Federal government and politicians, I have detested both since the late 1980s when I was a TEENAGER.

Why Is It...

That so many men want and need the government to take care of them.

Weak, whiny and dependent men are complete turn offs.

Gestell

I thank you for your warning that Liberals lie and make promises they have no intention of keeping.
I truly wish we could manage somehow to impress that fact upon Republican Legislators.

As to Reagan's position on Rationed Health Care;
He can best tell you that in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Woman w/Acne Denied Insurance!
AP has published a story that this claim by Obama is untrue. The woman in question was temporarily denied coverage because she had lied on her application for health insurance about a heart condition and serious overweight. Her Republican Congressman intervened and got her insurance coverage back despite the lying. I expected the people who claimed this, including the Prez to come on the thread and apologize for the misinformation. Since they seem to be busy with other things, I'll do it for them.

Denise

All men do not fit in one basket.
It is exceptionally arrogant to presume they do.
Most women have been wronged by at least one man before they find Mr. Right.
Some women are so stupid and vindictive they try to punish ALL men for what one man did to them.
That is a good way to drive away the affections of Mr. Right.
Turn off?
Arrogant, presumptuous nags turn off most guys.
Are you trying to start a "Battle of the Sexes"?

MyOpine

I was talking about the Liberal/Socialist men on this site that are always clamoring for the Federal government to take care of them. Have you noticed that the overwhelming majority of the Lib/Soc here are men?

OBAMA CARE & OTHER RELEVANT FACTS
I bet by this time next year

once seeing their massively enlarged tax bills (due to Obama-Care) those having voted for Him will be by then no longer such believers in the Wizzard of Odd & Grand-Listener.... Obama.

I will make a prediction that Obama's approval rating becomes far worse than Carters by this time next year and remain such during the final portion of his one term presidency... after which He becomes rated as the worst president since Kennedy which will include the worse one to date... Carter.

Dreamers will learn the hard way what the Wizzard of Odd & Grand-Listener costs them once expensive entitlements are made of everything Obama gets passed.

However, it is important for America to go through this 'teaching-moment' in history so as to NOT make this mistake again.

Obama is not the black version of Kennedy as many believe...

By the way... Obama is up to eleven things which now (suddenly) He fully supports that had been implemented by George Bush which He had very much railed against during His campaign.

By this time next year you can probably add another dozen plus two dozen more by the end of 2012.

Having said this I am glad Obama and not Hillary or McCain-Palin is in office. Either would have been far worse.

They don't teach 'the-presidency' at Harvard (where Obama and his wife were rather mediocre students). Obama was also mediocre in performance while at Columbia and with such a grade point average combined with His class rank... was then accepted (for reasons other than affirmative-action of course) onward and upward to the Harvard Law School where he and Michelle were not stellar students.

Sorry to disappoint readers with such revelations.

By the way... take a moment to count the number of letters in Barack Hussein Obama's name. They total 18 which is 6+6+6 (as in 666 via Revelations).

Inconvenient truths can be painful...

However, lessons learned hard are those learned best...


Denise

The word "Man" is quite descriptive and pertains to a specific type of beings.

Have you ever asked the Trolls about their military service or what kinds of jobs they have held?

It would surprise you how many have remained in Academics all their lives or never held a real man's job.

Try asking Zap or Mario;
What war did you serve in?
They go ballistic!

Obama's HC Flip Flops
Conservatives and the GOP are missing an opportunity to expose Democratic inconsistencies on the Individual Mandate. Now that they need Trillions to fund their Health Care takeover, they are MUST have the tax revenue that the Individual Mandates would bring in with the fines, Insurance Taxes, etc.

Here is a great article by James Joyner about just how vigorous his opposition to Individual Mandates used to be:


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/health_insurance_ mandates/


From the mouth of then Candidate Obama:


“If you look at auto insurance, in California there’s mandatory auto insurance,” Obama explained. “Twenty-five percent of the folks don’t have it. The reason is because they can’t afford it. So John and I, we’re not that different in this sense; that I’m committed to starting the process. Everybody who wants it can buy it and it’s affordable. If we have some gaps remaining, we will work on that. You take it from the opposite direction, but you’re still going to have some folks who aren’t insured under your plan, John, because some of them will simply not be able to afford to buy the coverage they’re offered.”


Can we see some flip-flop adds please? The debate where he said this is on Video – why isn’t this on Fox, commercials, etc and juxtaposed to his current statements where he literally gushes over in his praise for using government force to compel you to buy a private product against your will?


Here is a link to the video with a great critic by President Obama himself on why the Individual Mandates are BAD:


http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-was-aga inst-compulsory-health.html#comment-form


These individual mandates are a huge tax increase on the young and healthy to pay for the uninsured!


This video needs to be shown in the conservative media and President Obama needs to be called out for his Flip-flop on Individual Mandates!




MyOpine

I know that they have never served and that they denigrate the service of those who have. Ungrateful SOBs.

ROBERT - CA

The most regressive part of Obama's Tax program is the Cap & Trade Trickle Down.

I use 33% profit margin for this. most are greater.

For every $1 tax the material suppliers pay, they charge the Manufacturer $1.33
The Manufacturer charges the Wholesaler $1.77
The Wholesaler charges the Retailer $2.35
The Retailer charges the Consumer, (YOU), $3.13
To this you can add .10% Sales Tax and humongous Transportation costs.
This will cause runaway inflation.
It will destroy pensions & savings.
Retirees on fixed income and working poor who were doing ok before will go under and be forced onto Welfare, overloading and bankrupting the system.
It is deliberate.
This is the intent;
(Alinsky's words)
"They must feel so frustrated, so defeated,so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

This is the object;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the _strategy.html


Gestell
As I said on an earlier column, your fantasy on conservatives reads well it just isn't based in fact. All we have said is if you want to insure the poor, just don't create a humongous government entity to do it and don't take away our coverage to do it. Even a good number of dems are against that. I don't think we have to pay 45 to 50% income tax like Germany and England to do it either! If you want to pay out the nose like that....BE MY GUEST!!!!

Rich
Obama fails to remember that in almost all if not all states there are levels of coverage in auto insurance. State Minimums of 12,000/25,000 won't cover much in an accident but that's the state minimums in Ohio!

Rich and eastlake joe
On car insurance, Obama also neglects to say that you don't need to have car insurance in most states. However, if you don't have car insurance, you have to demonstrate that you have the ability to cover the minimum level of insurance, usually by posting a bond. For people with disposable cash it is a cheaper alternative to insurance.

In Arizona, 22% of all motorists who are in accidents DON'T HAVE CAR INSURANCE! Apparently, making a law making something mandatory doesn't necessarily produce 100% compliance. What a shock! I thought our law against murder had totally ended murder in Arizona.

Heatlh Care
The rest of the civilized world has found a way to provide universal health care to all its citizens. Here in the United States, we allow ideology and greed dictate who lives and who dies. While we kid ourselves about being morally superior and socalled "Christians", the rest of the world scoffs at our ignorance, inhumanity and selfishness. Anyone who advocates against a single payer universal health care system is morally bankrupt. Put a stack of hundreds next to your dying child, pick which one you think is more important. Its your money or your life folks.

Frank
"Anyone who advocates against a single payer universal health care system is morally bankrupt." Anyone who thinks the government can do the job better and cheaper is seriously delusional. Our system needs reform, not replacement. Let's start by getting the lawyers out of it and letting the medical professionals run it without fear of frivolous suits-- cap the amount of settlements to actual expenses and lost wages plus half a million dollars and John Edwards and his ilk go back to filing divorces and defending burglars. Allow free competition and a variety of plans to compete in an interstate free market. Allow doctors to publish their fees. Encourage private clinics. All of those reforms will reduce costs and increase service. Government controlled medical care will not.

Frank

Your false equation and pitiful plea are stale worn out PROPAGANDA!
Government run health care IS A PROVEN FAILURE!
THIS is the situation existing in Canada TODAY!
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/04/040915-7.htm

RIGHT NOW the poor are cared for in our hospitals.
Even ILLEGAL ALIENS are cared for.

Do you think EITHER would be able to produce the cash money needed for Underground Doctors or to go to another Nation for care?

If Obamacare is so great, why did our Congress exempt themselves from it?

IT IS ABOUT POWER, NOT HEALTH CARE!
This fight is nothing new.
Reagan explained it years ago and described the pathetic tactics people like you try to use to sell the lie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

So take your pathetic sob story back to DailyKos.

Frank
If you think a one payer system with the government as the payer then I suggest you check out Canada who is already talking about bringing back the insurance companies or England where they pay almost 50% of their income to taxes. I'm not choosing money over my kids healthcare, but I still have to feed,clothe, and house them!!! That's kinda' hard with only half of my pay!!

addendum
That should read government as the payer is good then I.....

Awlhat and Kaddle
My guess is that the tremendous contribution of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and other successful capitalists will be presented on tonights episode.

I have been a frequent visitor to the Smokey Mountain National Park and have always been grateful to Rockefeller for his very generous contribution to the creation of the park. Some would argue that he clandestinely bought private property and therefore displace the local inhabitants but if I recall there was a grandfaher clause to allow existing inhabitants to live there until their death.

Harry
Wow,

Dont you know that Care for the poor has been a religious exercise for three thousand years? of course you do you quoted James 1:27 also Matthew 25: 31-46 Jesus states that if you help the poor you enter the kingdom, and if you dont you go to hell.

Government has usurped the power of the church which was not delegated to them by the constitution because it was banned by the first amendment but they have made it 2/3 of the federal budqet! you can kill the bill, social security, and the IRS in one blow, this is the biggest violation of the seperation of churh and state in the United States history!

TAKE BACK RELIGION AND YOU TAKE BACK GOVERNMENT
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.