What will happen if healthcare bill is passed?

[Jaime]

What silence James? I'm not sure what you think I haven't answered. I HAVE answered the question about what me and our church is doing. Is there another question? I have personally contributed money, in addition to my regular contribution to our church's  operation I cited in post #33. I hope and pray I can do more. I and others in our church are committed to BE the church through this program called Radical Generosity, not through a government program.

And I think it is terribly obvious that the church in this country IS NOT doing enough to take care of the less fortunate. I pray that it will do far better to God's glory.

I feel like I have been typing in Greek or something here on this thread. Am I missing something? I have no animosity towards you or anyone else. I think God punished the Egyptians to accomplish his sovereign purpose. I hope this has cleared up a problem between us.

Anyone who has read my words and felt they were out of line, I apologize, and hope to do better.

Again James, please ask any question again that I have not answered. I have obviously overlooked something. Thanks.

[lightshineon]

 Some estimate 250,000 plus, marching in Washington on 9-12. People will not just go along with this bill. David Axelrod said " protesters views, are not the views of most Americans." Really? 15,000 show up to Obama's rally the same day,to hundreds of thousands of people on the mall. People of every ethnic group, and party, against Obama, against healthcare, against socialism. People wanting to take their country back, to what the founders intended it to be. Nobody  really thinks this will just be okie dokie if they pass this bill? Call me cynical, but, people are tired of it, not even a year into Obama's presidency.people will have a come apart if they pass this bill.

[Jaime]

James I re-read this thread and I see I did not directly answer your question. I was not purposely avoiding your question.You asked what I was doing personally and what is my church doing to help poor folks "pay their insurance coverage". My answer is NOTHING. I answered about something concrete we are doing, but I admittedly did not read your question as clearly as I should. I think you bring up a good idea. The church does need to do more as I said and somehow individuals and churches coming to the rescue in the form of insurance premiuns or such would be a good ministry. My personal help with the Radical Generosity that I mentioned is approximately equal to about 1/2 of the monthly cost of my H.S.A./ Catastrophic plan for myself, which maybe could be used to provide part or all of a poor family's coverage. Radical Generosity does help poor folks get some health services that they couldn't pay for, but maybe another way would be better.

I think you have a good idea. How do we as the Body of Christ implement such a thing. Why not the Body of Christ, I say (instead of the government)?

This is no different than the Churches in Paul's day coming to the rescue for the church in Jerusalem.
Marc has mentioned his area is poor and their church hasn't got the resources to help the helpless among their folks. It shouldn't be such a revolutionary idea for the Body of Christ in Midland Texas to come to the rescue of the poor in our area as well as helping stand in the gap in WV or other places. How great a testimony of our love would that be?

Again James, I am not bashing the church, but I am saying the Body of Christ could be a little more creative in our "Being the Church".

[Bon Voyage]

What is the primary purpose of the church?  Is it to feed the poor, doctor the sick?

[lightshineon]

What is the primary purpose of the church?  Is it to feed the poor, doctor the sick?

We all are called to different good works, as individuals, and as a corporate body, and the worldwide church. The main thing the church is for equipping the saints to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Eureka Springs Arkansas, there is a free clinic staffed by  Christian doctors, and two hundred and fifty volunteers, and pharmacy staff, with free scripts.. We have a free clinics here in my small town run by Christian doctors also. i have bought scripts for people more than once. I am not rich, am not being a pharisee saying how good I am.  God will place opportunities in front of us to help others, it will not be hidden. There is the lions club for glasses,. I have a burden for people with horrible teeth, or missing teeth. There seems to be no place to go for people, that have no dental insurance, and that are in pain, live in shame with bad teeth, or have no teeth at all.

[Jaime]

I think the primary purpose of the church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. I've heard it said that the world does not take the church or Christians  seriously because we are hypocritical in not helping the poor enough. That may be true. How better to convice the world we are serious than to really help the poor. Converting the world to Christ IS our goal afterall. Iy's one of those things whereby they will know we are Christians by our love, (like the song says) and want to be a part of that, rather than a group that might be focused on fancy buildings and such.

[Jaime]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

[kmv]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

[Jimmy]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

[Jaime]

KMV, I suspect if we ever agreed in principal, there would always be a semantics rub.

If the chirch doesn't function as the $ody of Christ, it is most definitely un-Christlike. Christ's body can only do what Christ would do...........or it is not like Christ. It is an imposter.

[kmv]

KMV, I suspect if we ever agreed in principal, there would always be a semantics rub.

If the chirch doesn't function as the $ody of Christ, it is most definitely un-Christlike. Christ's body can only do what Christ would do...........or it is not like Christ. It is an imposter.

My point is that it's not a matter of how the church appears.  It's not a matter of convincing the world that we're serious (although that's certainly a by-product).

If the church isn't caring for the least of these, then we aren't the church. 

[kmv]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

Straightforwardly - every single hungry, thirsty, sick, hurting, lonely, enslaved person we don't pick up and care for is Jesus Christ.

Every single time.

[Daddy Long Legs]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

Straightforwardly - every single hungry, thirsty, sick, hurting, lonely, enslaved person we don't pick up and care for is Jesus Christ.

Every single time.

Each person has been granted the freewill through Christ Jesus to act and use their own funds to do as they are led by Christ.   It is a different matter when it comes to the whether the Government has a consitutional right to take your money to help who they choose to.

[kmv]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

Straightforwardly - every single hungry, thirsty, sick, hurting, lonely, enslaved person we don't pick up and care for is Jesus Christ.

Every single time.

Each person has been granted the freewill through Christ Jesus to act and use their own funds to do as they are led by Christ.   It is a different matter when it comes to the whether the Government has a consitutional right to take your money to help who they choose to.

Hasn't it been pretty well established that taxation is constitutional?

[Jaime]

KMV, I suspect if we ever agreed in principal, there would always be a semantics rub.

If the chirch doesn't function as the $ody of Christ, it is most definitely un-Christlike. Christ's body can only do what Christ would do...........or it is not like Christ. It is an imposter.

My point is that it's not a matter of how the church  appears.  It's not a matter of convincing the world that we're serious (although that's certainly a by-product).

If the church isn't caring for the least of these, then we aren't the church.  

Agreed. (a rarity indeed)  

The one caveat is that a lot of churches do a lot of good that doesn't get "noticed" by the world and that is unfortunate. The good needs to be told so that God can be glorified TO the world.

[kmv]

KMV, I suspect if we ever agreed in principal, there would always be a semantics rub.

If the chirch doesn't function as the $ody of Christ, it is most definitely un-Christlike. Christ's body can only do what Christ would do...........or it is not like Christ. It is an imposter.

My point is that it's not a matter of how the church  appears.  It's not a matter of convincing the world that we're serious (although that's certainly a by-product).

If the church isn't caring for the least of these, then we aren't the church. 

Agreed. (a rarity indeed)   

The one caveat is that a lot of churches do a lot of good that doesn't get "noticed" by the world and that is unfortunate. The good needs to be told so that God can be glorified TO the world.

Ahh, God'll take care of the publicity.

[Jaime]

There is a bit of "selling" involved!
;-)

[Jaime]

Especially with some of our own self-induced negative publicity.

[kmv]

Especially with some of our own self-induced negative publicity.

Well, that's the truth.

Imagine if we persuaded the world half as well by what we say as we do by what we do.

[leeford]

What will happen? Well, 1 TRILLION dollars will be added to the United States budget.

And we will have 2 choices....staying with our current provider forever without ever being able to go to another private provider (we will have to pay a fee to the government to stay with our private provider) or switching to government-run healthcare. But our kids who don't have their own insurance yet will never be able to have anything but government-run healthcare.

The same party that believes killing an unborn child should be a "choice" wants to take away our choice of who our insurance company is.

Those are just two things that will happen.

[zoonance]

We need a CPR smiley.

[lightshineon]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

Straightforwardly - every single hungry, thirsty, sick, hurting, lonely, enslaved person we don't pick up and care for is Jesus Christ.

Every single time.

Each person has been granted the freewill through Christ Jesus to act and use their own funds to do as they are led by Christ.   It is a different matter when it comes to the whether the Government has a consitutional right to take your money to help who they choose to.

Hasn't it been pretty well established that taxation is constitutional?

Yeah, your right about taxation KMV, but the public option is unconstitutional. So we have sort of, a conflict of interest.

[kmv]

Being against our government taking on a function we don't believe is authorized does not make us heartless, but not helping as the Body of Christ does make us look un-Christlike.

I would say that not helping the vulnerable doesn't make the church look un-Christlike.

It makes 'the church' not the body of Christ. 

Christ could have helped a lot more "vulnerable" than He did.  Why didn't He?  Which "vulnerable" are we supposed to help and how?  Those on our block, in our town, in our state, in our country, in this world?  "Helping the vulnerable " is a very vague comment.  Slavery was quite common in the Roman empire at in Jesus' day.  Freeing slaves, it seems to me, would have been a very nice thing to do.  How much more vulnerable can one be than to be someone's slave?

A lot of words get bantied about in this regard, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of specificity to it.  I am not sure what it is, but "helping the vulnerable" is perhaps not so straightforward as it might first seem to be.

Straightforwardly - every single hungry, thirsty, sick, hurting, lonely, enslaved person we don't pick up and care for is Jesus Christ.

Every single time.

Each person has been granted the freewill through Christ Jesus to act and use their own funds to do as they are led by Christ.   It is a different matter when it comes to the whether the Government has a consitutional right to take your money to help who they choose to.

Hasn't it been pretty well established that taxation is constitutional?

Yeah, your right about taxation KMV, but the public option is unconstitutional. So we have sort of, a conflict of interest.

What exactly is unconstitutional about the public option?

[lightshineon]

 article 10.

[kmv]

article 10.

Is that some inside joke?

Could you provide the text of article 10?

[lightshineon]

article 10.

Is that some inside joke?

Could you provide the text of article 10?

You look it up KMV.

[kmv]

article 10.

Is that some inside joke?

Could you provide the text of article 10?

You look it up KMV.

Is there an article 10?

[Quinn]

Article X of the Bill of Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People.

[Isabell Island]

What problem is largely created by insurance companies?  And if the government gains control of healthcare as it is trying to do, what will the incentive be for change?
[/quote]

Apparently no one in your family has been denied coverage, treatment or has not had their coverage completely dropped once they are diagnosed with a major illness after paying years of premiums.  Have you looked at any of the insurance companies' annual reports to see their billions of dollars in profits because of these unfair practices?  CEO salaries topping 24 million dollars per year (even the brain surgeons cannot make that much each year).

A public option will give private insurance companies competition. We may even be able to have our health care operate with appropriate checks and balances where none exist now.

[lightshineon]

 Isabell, you assume much.