Castro applauds US health care

[nebula]

It makes me sad that there are so many so called "Christians" who would rather see the poor suffer than have one of there precious pennies allocated to the welfare of the poor.

America is surely doomed if they don't let go of the hand of mammon.

I wouldn't mind the welfare system if it wasn't such a breeding ground for evil. The system needs to be re-worked and overhauled big time.

This is one reason I don't trust the health care welfare system. I have no reason to believe it's not going to be just as broke as welfare.

[nebula]

To be fair, I don't think they are debating whether or not to help the poor, but whether or not it is the governments job to do so. They would rather give from free will, to an efficient private enterprise, than under compulsion, to an inefficient government.

At least, thats what I think is going on .

[~candice~]

God never gave me the right to liberty. that's one difference.

also, i never said anything about "exhaustive" medical care pertaining to life. did i? i said medical care. you added the word exhaustive.

i guess you understood wrong about American beliefs. we are founded on Christian theology, but we are not a theocracy.

I never said America was a theocracy. It is frustrating when people insist I am wrong, without investigating my opinion or how I reached it. I have spent a lot of time understanding American beliefs, and I didn't explain my understanding of American beliefs in any post here, so how can you conclude I am wrong .

And no, you didn't say exhaustive, but it reads as though ANY medical treatment that could be offered, should be offered, regardless of whether the patient can afford it or not. And that is exhaustive. I don't know why there is so much resistance to what I am saying, given that you and I agree far more than you realise, and far more than, for example, Dave and I, or Dave and you. I DO agree that a very basic core level of health care should be provided by the government, for their citizens, as a right. And if you read my posts, you will see that.

Given that we seem to be in the minority in that position, I'd like to discuss with you where you feel that right comes from...

andy, i never insisted you were wrong. where do you get that? i said my right to life came from a declaration; you asked me where in the Bible that right came from--me having not brought up the Bible, and my already having said where that right came from. so you tell me: what am i supposed to deduce from that? oy!

what i wrote is what i wrote. if you can quote something that i said where it "reads" as if ANY treatment offered should be offered, please do so. that may be the way you took it, but i should not be held accountable for the way you interpret things.

what am i resisting? you twisting my words? sorry, i'm funny that way. i have said where i feel that right comes from: the United States declaration of independence. what about that would you like to discuss?

Well, I bolded where you said that I was wrong, but I am really not interested in focussing on being "right", I just want to explore where your opinion comes from. Most Americans here assert that the declaration of independance enumerates rights given by God and found in the bible. Hence, when I speak to Americans about rights, I equate the declaration of independance with biblical rights, since that seems to be implied by many here. Do you disagree? Because that would explain my confusion....

Really, I'm not being snarky at all. Citizens rights, and where we feel they come from, is very interesting to me. I come from a country that does not have a declaration of independance, and my constitution does not enumerate rights. We don't even have a bill of rights. So when people ask me "where do you think the right to xyz comes from" I have to scratch around and think for a bit. I do believe that citizens have some right to (a basic, core needs) health care from the government. I just wonder how to defend my assertion that it is a right, without it formally being written in a constitution or document somewhere. See what I mean?

ok. i think i see where you're coming from. i believe the people who founded our country were Christians, and i believe some of what they saw as rights came from the way they saw God and the way they thought God saw them. but that doesn't mean that every thing in the declaration and everything in the constitution are biblical. different people in different countries have different "constitutional" rights. what God has established in His Word may or may not coincide with governmental rulings.

the United States of America was founded on biblical principles--no matter what some people may think. the ideas set forth in the constitution are biblical. the reason for signing the declaration of independence is biblical. the body of people making these decisions were, for the most part, Christian. they were not perfect--just as none of us are. but they were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time--just like all of us do. the constitution is not a biblical document. i believe God led the people to write it, but it does not exactly run parallel to the Bible in every area. so no, constitutional rights are not the same thing as the rights given to us by God. sorry for the confusion on that! and i can see now where your question came from. sorry, too, for jumping down your throat about it!

I am glad we understand each other now.

So where do you think the declaration of independance grants citizens the right to some medical care? Do you think you could use the bible to defend your belief that citizens are entitled to some medical care? Because if you can, I'd love to see how, LOL, because that would help me defend my own position!

[~candice~]

I am glad we understand each other now.

So where do you think the declaration of independance grants citizens the right to some medical care? Do you think you could use the bible to defend your belief that citizens are entitled to some medical care? Because if you can, I'd love to see how, LOL, because that would help me defend my own position!

i've already pointed out how the declaration of independance grants us the right to some medical care.

as far as using the Bible for it... well, there is the whole good samaritan story. why do you think He told that story? does He not point to medically caring for those in need? did He condone those who walked by because this stranger had no means to get his own medical care?

what would Jesus do if i had appendicitis? would He not care for me the best He could? would He say to me that because i didn't have insurance i was out of luck? even if He didn't have the power to heal, what do you think He would do? does not the Bible say that if we know to do good and we don't do it, it's sin? does that not point to a "right" to medical care?

as i've said, i think if there were more "good samaritans" in our midst, we wouldn't be having the trouble we are. (the carte blanche the good samaritan gave to the innkeeper was bigger than most people think--he emptied himself way more than most people realize.)

But the man gave aide to the good samaritan personally, he didn't take the samaritan to the temple or to the government to ask for a collective to provide that medical care. I'm with you on the government providing care, I'm just not sure this particular verse supports it.

I really hate hate hate to do this, but we live in a culture where the government is structured so differently to how it was back then, maybe this is a cultural thing . Appealing to culture change just makes me feel... awkward .

[~candice~]

i think that the founding fathers of this country did not see the government taking care of everything. it's not the "government" that's the answer. it's the "individual" and the individual response that's the answer--like the samaritan. i never said the government had the responsibility for health care. i said the country did. this country wasn't built on big government, and it shouldn't exist that way.

OK now I do understand your position. Thanks for elaborating.

[MorningGlory]

i think that the founding fathers of this country did not see the government taking care of everything. it's not the "government" that's the answer. it's the "individual" and the individual response that's the answer--like the samaritan. i never said the government had the responsibility for health care. i said the country did. this country wasn't built on big government, and it shouldn't exist that way.

Amen to that.

[nebula]

what would Jesus do if i had appendicitis?

I think He'd have healed you.

[nebula]

well, there is the whole good samaritan story. why do you think He told that story?

Luke 10

25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life ?" 26 And He said to him, "What is written in the Law ? How does it read to you?" 27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND ; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly ; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." 29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor ?"

[Jesus tells the parable]

36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?" 37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

does He not point to medically caring for those in need? did He condone those who walked by because this stranger had no means to get his own medical care?

I think this is one of those we-need-to-keep-things-in-context passages.

The parable was about who or what a "neighbor" is. It's about how to love the person next to you. The medical need was just a context to the point. And the man's need was more than just having his wounds treated.

does not the Bible say that if we know to do good and we don't do it, it's sin? does that not point to a "right" to medical care?

The question is whether the solution is to throw more money at the government for the government to do the job.

[nebula]

But the man gave aide to the good samaritan personally, he didn't take the samaritan to the temple or to the government to ask for a collective to provide that medical care.

Umm . . . that's a little backwards.

The Good Samaritan gave aid to the man, not the other way around.

[~candice~]

But the man gave aide to the good samaritan personally, he didn't take the samaritan to the temple or to the government to ask for a collective to provide that medical care.

Umm . . . that's a little backwards.

The Good Samaritan gave aid to the man, not the other way around.

Ooohh hand me my coffee please .