Castro applauds US health care

[~candice~]

Andy,

Then take into account inefficiency,

I am a Business Student and I will tell you something that any first year student knows without having to be told. The private sector is always more efficient than the Federal Government. Be it Charity or not. Simply because a private affair operates under the principle of Stewardship and understands that it is profit motivated and that efficiencies are paramount. That's the whole basis of Business in Capitalism. Business has been working towards efficiencies from day one. if it doesn't generate a profit it ceases to exist. if you fail in executing efficiencies and good stewardship you will fail in your efforts and ceas to exist as a Charity or a Business.

However, the Government looks at the resources of others as their own. They will continue to take or ration as they see fit. They will not look for efficiencies.

The Charitable organizations understand that the resources belong to God and therefore they operate under the principles of Good Stewardship.

If you do not generate a profit for the Business as a Manager you will be fired. There is no threat of removing Government officials for poor performance.

We simply disagree.

The Lord has not asked us to look to the Government for resources. He has asked us to rely on Himself. He is the Lord of our lives, not the Government. There is no third leg in the relationship between God and man. That said, the Lord has also said that He stores up the riches of the wicked to give to the Righteous. If you are looking to the Government to take care of you. You will have the Government to be your Lord.

It is my opinion that God is currently mocking an American Idol to teach us much like the Israelites in the desert that man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

Peace,

Dave

Dave... I was asking you to take into account government inefficiency. I really think you went that extra mile . I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on???

I'm simply asking for some kind of financial statistics that might demonstrate that private charity could support genuine need.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I am to tired for a long reply, just search under my thoughts.

This bill is not about healthcare, its about control.

The government threw us a few bones in the bill that were good and needed to make it seem nicer.

they put a whole much more unneeded "Pork" spending in the bill

They also put in controls on us in the bill. They have violated at least one part of our constitution.

They have overspent, surprise surprise.

My boss knows the health care system well. He shops for insurance for all his employees and does a lot of research.

He could fix the system providing the same level of care we get for 1-2 Billion dollars and with out the government control and rationing.

Not the 2.5 Trillion.

This bill still does not deal with the problem of sever overcharging for basic consumable supplies, like Tylenol at 35$ a pill and 7 dollars for a bandaid.

This takes away our freedom, and does not really help enough to make up for its drastic shortcomings.

Even "Rolling Stone" Magazine an anti-God and anti-conservative anti-Bush Magazine said that this bill was bad and should not have been forced through but of course blamed the republicans for stonewalling so its their fault that the Dem's had to force through a bill that was bad.

Remember this was forced upon us with out our vote, or consent, with a lot of back room deals, and shady dealings. This is what the issue is, not the system.

[Matthitjah]

Andy,

Then take into account inefficiency,

I am a Business Student and I will tell you something that any first year student knows without having to be told. The private sector is always more efficient than the Federal Government. Be it Charity or not. Simply because a private affair operates under the principle of Stewardship and understands that it is profit motivated and that efficiencies are paramount. That's the whole basis of Business in Capitalism. Business has been working towards efficiencies from day one. if it doesn't generate a profit it ceases to exist. if you fail in executing efficiencies and good stewardship you will fail in your efforts and ceas to exist as a Charity or a Business.

However, the Government looks at the resources of others as their own. They will continue to take or ration as they see fit. They will not look for efficiencies.

The Charitable organizations understand that the resources belong to God and therefore they operate under the principles of Good Stewardship.

If you do not generate a profit for the Business as a Manager you will be fired. There is no threat of removing Government officials for poor performance.

We simply disagree.

The Lord has not asked us to look to the Government for resources. He has asked us to rely on Himself. He is the Lord of our lives, not the Government. There is no third leg in the relationship between God and man. That said, the Lord has also said that He stores up the riches of the wicked to give to the Righteous. If you are looking to the Government to take care of you. You will have the Government to be your Lord.

It is my opinion that God is currently mocking an American Idol to teach us much like the Israelites in the desert that man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

Peace,

Dave

Dave... I was asking you to take into account government inefficiency. I really think you went that extra mile . I'm not sure what we are disagreeing on???

I'm simply asking for some kind of financial statistics that might demonstrate that private charity could support genuine need.

Andy,

It doesn't matter, although, I believe God has the resources. The issue is that it's not the Government's responsibility. It's the individual's responsibility.

Peace,

Dave

[MorningGlory]

This bill is not about healthcare, its about control.

Who told you this and why do you believe it?

[Matthitjah]

I happen to agree with the brother that it is about control.

Let me add that health care is not a Right, it's the priveledge of living in a free and prosperous society and since this bill introduces confiscatory practices for funding and basically makes it impossible for the current Health Care Insurance Industry to operate within it's confines. It will end the priveledge of the free and prosperous society.

We are in the process of killing the Goose that has laid the Golden Egg's.

Honestly, is it a right to have a roof over your head? If it is, you best get about lobbying the Government to supply you with a home. Is it a right to have food on your table? If it is, you best get to lobbying the Government to supply you with Groceries. Is it a right to have a job? If it is, you best get to Lobbying the Government to supply you with a Government mandated job by a member of the new Nationalist society and have the Government that you have duly elected also guarentee you a living wage. Wait a tick. We already have that but I say that the current minimum wage is too low. I want, neigh', I demand as my Right that my employer who is securely backed by my duly Elected Federal Government pay me $100,000.00 dollars a year. It's my right and I want it doggon' it!

A Free and Prosperous Nation affords you these opportunities, but no Nation can guarentee them and long stand. What you will get with National Health Care is less care which will lead to more illness and death.

This Nation is being driven into a ditch of financial bankruptcy. We simply cannot afford all of this as we destroy the business base and private property rights that we do have. It's really not that hard to understand.

Peace,

Dave

[refugepsa91]

I agree with Matthitjah....the new taxes imposed on me (a small business owner) are going to hurt with the passage of this healthcare bill.

I will be paying a new 10% tax on my tanning. Starting July 1, 2010.

[~candice~]

Dave

I think you entirely missed my point. I was looking for facts and figures on private charity that meets genuine health care needs, with a goal to determine whether or not private charity could meet the need if the state totally backed out. I asked for the inefficiency (context would have demanded, the inefficiency of the government compare to private business) to be taken into account when determining if charity could meet the current genuine need, since the amount needed would be less than it currently takes the government to meet that need.

We (collective) keep talking about how it's not the governments job, and how private charity / business should be tasked with doing this... and I want facts and figures, not opinion, to show that this will work.

Andy

[~candice~]

whilst i do not agree with a lot of what i've heard about this health care bill, i'm not so sure i would say health care isn't a right. where do the words "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come from? if being able to live is not a right, neither is liberty. if i have an illness that will kill me without medical help, how can i say i live in a country that has the right to life if that same country does not provide the medical treatment to save my life?

i don't know what the answer is. i know it is not the government stepping in and taking over. but i don't think this country was founded upon the attitude that people should die if they cannot afford treatment. in fact, i believe that the value of each human life was part of what drove the colonists to fight for their independence. it's a Christian attitude. and i think it sometimes goes against our "each man must provide for himself" mindset of the conservative right. don't get me wrong: i am OF that mindset. it's just that sometimes i think we take it too far. like when we say that principle goes above the welfare of individual lives.

Everyone dies. The government would have a 100% failure rate, and spend a lot of money doing that failing, if everyone received every single possible treatment available.

Does the bible really give us the right to LIFE as you described?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Charitow,

Those words; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness came from the Judeo Christian Ethic.

I would argue that not even God guarentee's that you won't get sick and that you won't die.

What the Government is designed to do under this mandate is to protect and guarentee that you will have the environment to pursue those things. Not guarentee you the Right necessarily to them. They are God given. The Constitution recognizes that fact and set's out a GOvernment that is confined and restricted not empowered to enable them and insure them.

It is not a document of negative Liberties in which the Government is unlimited in it's right to pursue Justice as it defines it. It is a positive document of Liberties which in fact limit's the Government and protects the individual's Liberty from the Government. It was designed to limit the very Tyranny that we find ourselves under in which your pursuit of happiness overrides mine and then the Goevrnment enforces your Liberty and refuses mine.

If there are U.S. Citizens that want to guarentee Health Care as a Right then they ought to Liberate their pocket books and pull their resources and bring it through the charity of their heart's. However, they do not have the right to use the Government to enforce it with the full force of the U.S. Government. They cannot and should not hold a gun to my head to provide for another. This is not Liberty because my pursuit of happiness has been limited.

Peace,

Dave

[~candice~]

whilst i do not agree with a lot of what i've heard about this health care bill, i'm not so sure i would say health care isn't a right. where do the words "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come from? if being able to live is not a right, neither is liberty. if i have an illness that will kill me without medical help, how can i say i live in a country that has the right to life if that same country does not provide the medical treatment to save my life?

i don't know what the answer is. i know it is not the government stepping in and taking over. but i don't think this country was founded upon the attitude that people should die if they cannot afford treatment. in fact, i believe that the value of each human life was part of what drove the colonists to fight for their independence. it's a Christian attitude. and i think it sometimes goes against our "each man must provide for himself" mindset of the conservative right. don't get me wrong: i am OF that mindset. it's just that sometimes i think we take it too far. like when we say that principle goes above the welfare of individual lives.

Everyone dies. The government would have a 100% failure rate, and spend a lot of money doing that failing, if everyone received every single possible treatment available.

Does the bible really give us the right to LIFE as you described?

im certainly not silly enough to think that any type of healthcare can keep us from ever dying!

i was not speaking of biblical rights. i was referring to the rights stated in the declaration of independence. guess you wouldn't understand that.

I understood just fine . No need to be snarky.