Three Confessions Before We Continue

Dear Dad,

OK, I’m almost ready to begin addressing some of the points you made in your last note. But before I do, I want make three confessions.

First, I have a tendency to think I’m right about most things. The mature, redeemed part of me knows this certainly isn’t true, but I still have that sin nature that would like me to believe that all my opinions are the right ones. I am praying that, as we continue this conversation, God will give me humility. That sinful nature is going to try to make me think that the goal of this discussion is for me to be right. But really, the goal is for me to find truth, and then walk in the truth God reveals. Honestly, that is what I want from this discussion. I feel passionately about issues related to faith and public policy, and I hope that through this discussion God will show me what actions I can take to live out His Good News in this area.

Secondly, I have, as I’m sure you’ve probably noticed, serious issues with Conservative Evangelicals as a group (although, and I’m not totally sure about this, I might be one of them…). I’m going to tend to lump you into this image of Conservative Evangelicals that I have formed in my head, which may or may not be an accurate one. But I do realize that not all Conservative Evangelicals are the same, and many of my stereotypes may not describe you. Please forgive me if I make assumptions about you and your beliefs based on this stereotype. And feel free to point it out (gently, please) if/when that happens.

Thirdly, the reason I have gotten so worked up about this issue is because I passionately believe that there is a strong theme throughout the Bible related to how God identifies himself with the poor and oppressed, and how He expects His people to care for the needy. That being said, I am not currently doing anything to help the poor and needy. We give money to our church, and some of that, I’m sure, goes to ministries serving the poor. But I am not directly connected to any ministries that are fighting poverty, providing health care, or pursuing justice for the oppressed. Like I said, the real goal of this discussion is for me to figure out what is the best way for me, with my unique passions and gifts, to live out what I see in Scripture. If sharing this conversation with others helps someone else figure out that same thing for themselves, then that would be a bonus.

Alright, with that out of the way, I can say that as I sat down to respond to the points in your previous note, I realized that I probably need to divide my response into at least two parts, which I think, for the sake of keeping the posts somewhat short, I will send in separate posts. Those posts will address (but probably not answer) these two questions:

1. You’ve made the point that the way to help the poor is not to take from the rich. So, since the Bible is full of commands for God’s people to make sure the poor are taken care of, how do we do that?
   
2. Discussions about public policy these days often come down to capitalism vs. socialism. Why do conservative Christians often imply, or state outright, that capitalism is the God-approved economic system and socialism is evil?

I have things to say on each of these questions, but feel free to answer them before I do. I am bursting with things to say, but let me know if you want me to slow down so you can respond to something before I get going again. I can wait to post again until you've had a chance to, if you want.

Mark told me that he told you today that I am all fired up about this (in a good way). I think I’ve been wanting to have a conversation like this with someone for years. I’m not sure if you knew what you were getting yourself into by agreeing to this! But, again, I really appreciate it.

Mindy

A Reason for this Conversation

Dad,

I want to respond to your previous note in more detail, but since we’ve moved this discussion to a blog, I’d like to take the opportunity to reiterate one of my purposes in starting this conversation. There are really two issues that have spurred me to invite others to share their thoughts related to the health care debate—one of them is the actual health care reform issue, and what it means in light of our faith. The second issue is the way the debate about health care, as well as other political issues of the day, are being discussed.

My hope has been to get past the sensationalism and fear-mongering of the media in order to understand the true issues at stake. It is not helpful for me to hear people compare Obama to Mao, or to claim that the health care bill would mandate euthanasia. There have been many emails forwarded around that make all kinds of claims and accusations, but the emails aren’t always backed up with sources or facts, although it seems recipients of the emails often take them as fact. This kind of thing frustrates me, because I want to have enough information to form my own opinions. Anyone can take anything out of context and twist it to send whatever message they want. But if they provide you with the source of their information, at least you can go back and check to see if you would come to the same conclusion they did.

A perfect example of this came from the Glenn Beck series last week on Fox News. Mom and I discussed this briefly last week, and she was very concerned because Beck claims that Obama is developing a private military. I haven’t seen the entire Fox News video, but I did see that Beck showed a clip of a speech Obama gave during the campaign. Here is the transcript of the bit of the speech shown on Beck’s program:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Transcripts of all Obama’s campaign speeches can be found on his website at www.barackobama.com/speeches , organized by date. Beck did not tell us which speech this soundbite was from, and he didn’t mention the context of the above statement. Here is that same paragraph in the context of the speech, which was given in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008:

“Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.

And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up.”

Seeing that paragraph in the context of the rest of the speech leads me to a very different conclusion than Glenn Beck’s.

So, the reason I am glad we are having this conversation is that I want dig through the muck that the media often gives us in order to understand the real issues. I want to hear rational, well-reasoned and well-researched arguments—and not just from people I tend to agree with, but from people who are different from me. If there is truth to what people like Glenn Beck are saying, I do want to know it, but I need you, someone I know and love and trust (even if we don’t always agree) to convince me.

Thanks again for being willing to have this conversation, and for inviting others to join in by taking it to the blogosphere. I’m sure this will be very interesting…

Mindy

Response to "The Moral Imperative of Health Care Reform"

Dear Mindy:
I appreciate your persistence in pursuing a (biblical) understanding of the raging health care debate. There ARE some pretty strident voices on both sides of the debate. Professor Gushee provides his share of them. His article has for me, hand grenades in every paragraph. For example, his statement, "whether we can simultaneously love a neighbor and not care if they die from a treatable disease because they cannot pay for it", is an example of a monstrous accusation against perhaps the most compassionate nation on earth right now, and the people giving of time and money sacrificially to help the poor in many ways, including free clinics. No one in our country is turned away from health care because they cannot pay for it.

For starters, the title of his article, "The Moral Imperative of Health Care Reform", is not what his piece is about. Health care reform is one thing, but Universal health care, aka socialized medicine, which is clearly what he is advocating, is entirely another. I happen to be in favor of health care reform, as are the vast majority of Americans. We all know that the system needs work. I and about 75% of my countrymen are not in favor of socialized medicine however. Now I know that those statistics don't matter to you right now. You want to know what the biblical imperitives are, and that is good. That is always where to start.

1)Here is a quote from Adrian Rogers, 3x past president of the SBC and one of the most anointed bible teachers of our time:
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they did not work for, that my dear friends is the beginning of the end of any nation."

Dr. Rogers is using the principle in Exodus 20:17, the tenth Commandment about not coveting ANYTHING that is our neighbors'. In order to provide socialized medicine, that would happen thousands of times per day. That would be an affront to God.

2) One of the things that need to be cleaned up is the overheated tort system in our country that grossly adds to our health costs. Physicians routinely pay liability premiums of over $200,000 per year just to be covered from lawsuits! We can blame it on the lawyers, and usually do, but someone has to do the suing. I personally know many believers who have done that. I believe that is an affront to God. Neither the writers of HR 3200 nor the professor addresses that.

3) The ethics prof pretty smoothly goes from a "theology of human rights that includes bodily rights, which includes a right to health care", (paid for by someone else) I'm frankly lost on that one. Where does scripture speak to a right to health care. He also speaks about the "unjust maldistribution of health care in this country as a huge national scandal." Those words "unjust maldistribution" are code words for socialism. No peoples anywhere have been lifted up by mandated equal distribution of resources.

4) All right, let's address the compassion issue. We are exhorted by the professor that there is "the moral imperitive to extend adequate health care to all of our nation's people." No there isn't, at least by the government. That is not a hard hearted response. It is none of the government's business to provide health care. It is up to the church, the individuals, and a system that allows for an adequate compensation AND PROFIT for the care it provides. Only then will better ways be researched and found to treat people. Only then will physicians have the freedom to treat people in the best way and for the patients whole life without a public agency deciding it for him. And the poor will be the beneficiaries of that better treatment. Having the government make the allocations of treatments is the least compassionate way imaginable, esp for the poor.

5) Even our Lord observed that we will always have the poor with us. That is not fatalistic. It's just the way it is. The best possible way to improve health care for all is to regulate tort law, regulate the way insurance companies make their payments, and by all means, not force America's companies to pay an onerous tax on top of the health care premiums we already pay.

6) And one last thing. We don't have the money to do it. And to do it anyway would be an affront to God. "Owe no man anything".

The professor is right that there are for sure broader moral issues at stake. Unfortunately, conservative Christians like me are painted with the "no compassion" brush. I reject that because I believe the better and sometimes harder way is not simply to hand out someone elses money to "solve" a problem. Destroying a free enterprise system that, under God, has created the most prosperous nation on earth, would be a gross misservice to the poor. Our level of prosperity has lifted everyones boat, unless a decision is made to get out of it. That's an individual decision. May the Lord give us all wisdom in these days.
Love,
Dad

The Morality of Health Care Reform

(posted by Mindy)

Here is another good article that I feel articulates well how I'm feeling about the discussion of health care reform among evangelicals. It is written by a professor of Christian ethics at a Baptist seminary (Mercer University). I am still confused about the current proposals going through Congress, so I'm not saying I support the current reform 100%, but I do feel that something should be done. I also wish that more prominent evangelicals were making the points that Professor Gushee makes--that there is a broader moral issue here.

My goal in sending this is to initiate conversation--like I said, this is a confusing issue, and I really want to learn from all sides of the debate. I suspect that even people who disagree drastically can find some common ground, and that would be a good starting point for conversation.

Mindy

Opinion: The moral imperative of health-care reform
By David Gushee
Monday, August 24, 2009

(ABP) -- The national debate raging over health-care reform has become a maelstrom of competing claims and counterclaims. It has been deeply infected by political demagoguery and hysteria.

The tenor of the debate raises the legitimate question as to whether our nation still has the capacity to tackle an enormously complex policy challenge such as this one. Each day we spend millions of dollars to defeat external threats -- but if we cannot address our own domestic problems any more effectively than this, then it will not be al Qaeda that undoes us.

The primary Christian interest in health-care reform is the moral imperative to extend adequate health care to all of our nation’s people. Why is health-care access a moral imperative? Choose your Scripture text or your moral theory, but they all point in the same direction:

Those of us who enjoy access to health care could try a Golden Rule test, and ask whether we are doing unto others as we would have them do unto us if we do not fight for health care for those who do not have it. Is this how we would like our children to be treated when they are sick?

We could work from Jesus’ teaching of “love your neighbor as yourself” and ask whether we can simultaneously love a neighbor and not care if they die from a treatable disease because they cannot pay for care.

We could work from a theology of human rights that includes bodily rights, which includes a right to health care -- at least in societies such as our own that have the capacity to deliver health care.

We could speak of basic principles of distributive justice in regard to the goods needed for a decent life in a community, and note the obvious fact that the unjust maldistribution of health care in this country is a huge national scandal and an affront to the God of justice.

We could focus on Scripture’s concern for the poor and the demand that they be provided for, and then link poverty and lack of adequate health care -- for these are linked every day, in deadly ways, here.

The national debate over health-care reform has lost, or never developed, a truly moral focus. It has not been treated as the great moral crusade that it is. To find a way to extend quality health care to 50 million Americans who do not currently have it would be an extraordinary moral victory for this country. But except around the fearful edges of the debate -- “pulling the plug on grandma,” “death panels,” abortion -- the moral case has been muted, shouted down, abandoned or never made.

A word must be said about these most extreme fears. In my view they reflect some combination of honest grassroots-level misunderstandings of complex policy issues -- misunderstandings that are often fed by purposeful misrepresentations by activists seeking to derail health-care reform or to deal Barack Obama a setback. Such misunderstandings have been enabled to some extent by a lack of message clarity on the part of those advocating various pieces of reform legislation.

No American Congress will pass health-care legislation with Nazi-type euthanasia panels. No one will start surreptitiously pulling the plug on grandma. And if some contingent tries to slip in expansion of taxpayer funding for abortion into the final bill, it will lose my support and that of many others.

It must be observed, however, that for a certain contingent of American Christians, issues only become “moral issues” at the edges of life -- at the beginning and the end. Providing health care for 50 million people is not itself viewed as a moral imperative; the issue only becomes morally significant if it might, somehow, just maybe, lead to more abortion or to euthanasia. Is it not possible for Christians to care both about people getting health care when they need it, and about abortion and euthanasia? Once again we see how important it is that Christians develop a holistic, comprehensive sanctity-of-life ethic concerned about human well-being from womb to tomb -- and everywhere in between.

I have argued that extension of health-care access is a great moral imperative. I have also argued that it must not, cannot, and -- as far as I can see -- is not being purchased at the price of succumbing to euthanasia or taxpayer-funded abortion. It also seems clear to me that gaining this expanded access to health care at a reasonable price to the taxpayer, business and the federal budget is a highly important prudential goal.

Which kinds of reform strategies will be the most effective at extending coverage to the most people at the least additional cost are questions best left to those who have the expertise to make informed judgments on such matters. But that we need something like the health-care legislation now struggling through Congress seems to me very clear on Christian grounds.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

Health Care Reform, the Poor and the Bible

Dad,

I do appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this issue--your own thoughts and words are much more valuable to me than a forwarded email as I try to make an informed opinion about health care reform.

I have two major concerns about the current state of health care in this country. One is that basic, decent quality health care is not affordable or accessible for a lot of people in this country. There are people with jobs who can't afford health insurance and are barely getting by, trying to pay bills and feed their family, and end up forgoing preventive health care because they can't afford a doctor's visit, and then end up sicker. Not to mention the homeless, children from poor families or others who have difficulty getting the basic health care they need. Our country is so prosperous, I don't understand why this should be acceptable.

Secondly, I am extremely frustrated by insurance companies. I think everyone I know has a story about a situation with an insurance company where they were denied coverage for a procedure, doctor's visit or medication that was supposed to be covered according to their policy. My own experience and the stories of others seem to indicate that the goal of insurance companies is to hold on to as much of your money as possible, even if you are entitled to coverage or reimbursement according to the policy you are paying for. The standard practice for insurance companies seems to be to initially deny all claims, in hopes that the customer will not have the wisdom, time or ability to fight for the coverage they have bought. This is downright wrong.

These are my concerns. I am not claiming that Obama's proposed health care reform will fix these issues, because I don't know enough about it. If it did fix these issues, but included government funding for abortion, then that would be a problem.

But perhaps you're right, perhaps the government has no business trying to fix these problems. If that is the case, who would be responsible? As far as helping to make sure the poor have access to health care, then certainly the church should be involved. Many hospitals, of course, were started by Christians who felt it was their God-given duty to care for the sick. Some churches today support health clinics or have programs that help people find the services they need. This is great. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be happening enough.

And who should be responsible for keeping insurance companies accountable? I suppose in a free market, ideally, consumers would choose the companies that provided good coverage and were fair and honest in their practices, leaving other companies without enough customers to support themselves, forcing them to improve or go out of business. But what if every insurance company out there is corrupt? What if there is no option that provides good coverage and is fair and honest?

The overarching reason for my concern for the poor is not because I am a "liberal" (although, politically, perhaps that's what I am--but please don't make assumptions about me based on that--it doesn't mean I agree with everything Obama or Congressional democrats say). The reason for my concern for the poor is because I read the Bible. How we, as individuals and as a community, treat the poor is intricately tied up with the Gospel and our relationship to God. A couple passages that support this are Isaiah 58:5-10 and Matthew 25:31-46.

⁵ Is this the kind of fast I have chosen,
only a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed
and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD ?

⁶ "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness ^a]">[a] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

I highlighted some parts to point out that this passage claims that when an individual or a community cares for the poor, then God gets glory and their light shines. If the USA is a "Christian" nation, then we need to be concerned for the poor and oppressed if we want our light to shine in the world and God to be glorified. And, we need to do away with the pointing finger and malicious talk (Lord, help us...)

Here, also, is Matthew 25:31-46

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

In this passage, it looks like Jesus might be judging nations, as well as individuals. Our nation will be judged if we do not make sure the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, the sick are cared for. Not only that, but Jesus identifies himself with the hungry, sick, naked, prisoner. We meet Jesus when we interact with and care for the poor.

These are just two passages that highlight the importance of caring for the poor. There are hundreds more. I believe Scripture as a whole supports the idea that how we care for the poor is definitely one of the most important things about our life and relationship with God.

I've kind of gone on and on, and gotten a bit off the topic of health care. But I hope you can see that it is related. If proponents of health care reform are claiming that it is about helping the sick and the poor, then I want to understand it better, to know if that's really what it is. Unfortunately, as I try to understand it, I have come to mistrust conservative Christian media, because they are using tactics that are dishonest and reactionary. I am looking for other ways of getting, as I said, good, well-presented, verifiable information, on all sides of the issue. It seems to be a difficult and time-consuming task...

Thanks for engaging with me on this topic. I hope you're enjoying the conversation...

Mindy

P.S. Here is another link to the McLaren article. I know I've already written a lot, but if you have time, let me know what you think...

http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/an-open-letter-to-conservative-c.html

Thoughts on the Health Care Bill

Hi Mindy:

I did read the CT article, but the other wouldn't pull up. Seems to be enough blame and misquoting to go around these days on the subject of health care. I'm afraid I am not at all sympathetic to the idea of government intervention in the medical care of it's people. My problems go back to whether the government has any business at all in these matters, and for me, the answer is no. The State exists for just a few reasons, one being to maintain a standing army for national defense, a domestic police force for preserving the peace internally, and not much more.

When Norman Thomas was running for President on the Socialist ticket in the 1960's, he wanted something like socialized medicine. Americans did not want it and saw the many pitfalls. Neither he nor his programs such as this were taken seriously then, but they are now because we, the frog, are in a pot that is slowly being brought to a boil by liberal politicians. Entitlements of unimaginable scale are our "right" now

Socialized medicine lets the government bull into you and your son's china shop that you will surely regret later. You didn't mention the funding available for abortions, or the 8% premium small businesses will have to pay for govt health care. Will that care be any better? I answer in a simple way. I have never seen the govt do anything better than the private sector can do, warts and all.

About the five year consultation, probably a good thing, but probably a bad thing if this govt is the driving force for it.

I believe a health care bill of some sort will be passed by the Pelosi/Reed combine. It doesn't really matter what's in it. Once the nose of the camel is in the tent, additions and modifications will come fast, and we will have little to say about it. And you won't like it.

My love to you

Dad

Response to $64,000 Question

Hi Dad,

I am very eager to learn more about health care reform, and I would welcome your thoughts or any good information you could send along. There is so much misinformation going around that it is hard to know where to find good facts. This email you forwarded may be perfectly legitimate, but I do have some questions and concerns about it.

Because of all the code surrounding it, it seems this has been forwarded again and again, and I can't tell who originally wrote it. Do you know where it came from originally?

Also, the email mentions an interview on ABC's health care special. I wanted to find the interview, either a transcript or video, so I could understand the exact wording of the question, and the context surrounding Obama's response (or lack of response). The email quotes the interviewer's question asking about "the universal health care program." Although some people are calling Obama's health care reform "nationalization" or "the government takeover of health care", that isn't really what it is. He has said he would like to see universal health care, or a single payer system, eventually, and perhaps the current bill would lead to that, but the current bill is not that. This could be the reason for Obama's failure to answer the question. But I couldn't find a copy of the interview, so I wasn't able to judge for myself what this interaction might have meant.

I looked up the "Kennedy Health Care Bill" mentioned in the email, and although I didn't take too much time to research it thoroughly, the discussion about this particular bill took place in early June. There have been a lot of changes to the proposed reform since then, so the information in this email might be outdated by now.

Lastly, and this may be a picky thing, but I'm a teacher, so I guess these things matter to me: the email was full of typos and misspellings.

I don't know what to think about health care reform, really. I think it is needed, but I don't know what it should look like. The whole issue is so complicated I feel like I need a degree to make an informed decision. But I do want to try to understand what I can, and would be interested in hearing from all sides of the debate with good, well-presented, verifiable information.

Did you have a chance to read the CT article or the McLaren letter I sent earlier?

Mindy

Forwarded Email: Finally, the $64,000 question was asked!

>
>
>
> .
>
>
> Subject: FINALLY..... THE $64,000 WAS ASKED.
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> FINALLY...THE $64,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED...
>
> YESTERDAY ON "ABC-TV" (BETTER KNOWN AS THE ALL BARRACK CHANNEL) 
> DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"....  OBAMA WAS ASKED:
>
>
>
>
> "MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH 
> CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT 
> THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"..... (BET YOU ALREADY KNOW THE 
> ANSWER)...
>
> THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE 
> NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!...
>
> IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND 
> THERE RESPONSE WAS..."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT."
>
> AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY 
> HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM 
> INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
>
> SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS 
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...??  WE (THE 
> AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!!.... 
> THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
>
> PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT 
> EXTENDS TO EVERYONE... NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS... WHILE THE 
> WASHINGTON "ELITE" KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE 
> COVERAGE'S.
>
> IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON ....IF NOT PLAN TO SUFFER WITH THE 
> OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN ....FOR FREE....   WHILE OUR SELF-SERVING 
> POLITICIANS MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE CARE  OF THEIR BUTTS AT OUR 
> EXPENSE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Health Care Debate Frustration

Friends and Family,

I read some interesting articles recently that I wanted to share. With all of the debate on healthcare reform, I have been very frustrated by what I'm hearing in the news--particularly through conservative Christian news sources.

The first article is an example of what i find so frustrating--it is from Christianity Today, a publication that I usually like quite a bit. The article itself seems to be somewhat balanced, but the headline is a perfect example of the kind of propoganda that seems to be flying about these days. If you take time to read the article, please also read some of the comments--many of them express my own frustration with the use of inflammatory and false language that seems to be included in every news story I've heard about the topic on Christian radio.

The second article is by Brian McLaren, and urges Christians to refrain from contributing to the fear-mongering and propaganda that is coming from both sides of the debate. The fact is (in my opinion), the health care system in this country does have some serious problems, and in order for anything to improve there needs to be honest, open dialogue. What I see happening seems to be politicized mud-slinging. The McClaren article is a bit long, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it if you get the chance to read it.

Mindy

P.S. When I went to link the CT article I found they had changed the headline and deleted the comments that had criticized it. The original headline was "Section 1233: Mandating Euthanasia?"

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/11/an-open-letter-to-conservative-christians-in-the-us-on-health-care/#disqus_thread

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/08/section_1233_ma.html