Whole Reason

It is obvious that private charities are the best route.
I am so disgusted with this health care "fiasco" as you say.

I think it very likely that the people that are going to be highly motivated by Ted Kennedy's passing as it relates to health care, are already for it.
WLCraig has a great mind, and I think he really gets to the heart of it. The Church (big C) is called to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as typified in widows and orphans). We cannot in good conscience abdicate that responsibility to the government.

>> JAMES: The Church (big C) is called to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as typified in widows and orphans). We cannot in good conscience abdicate that responsibility to the government.
The problem is, we HAVE ALREADY abdicated our responsibility, just like absentee fathers have abandoned their ghetto kids. So what should society and the government have done? Watch the kids go to hell in a handbasket?
In these cases, I think that the government's responsibility is to give a hand up, and help people take BACK their responsibilities, which might mean giving additional incentives to private charities to do what they should be doing anyway.

My view is that we can do both: support the private charity of our choice and contribute, through our taxes, to alleviating problems which are too large for the private sphere. My view is that our government, as imperfect as it is, represents the people, and I don't hate it like you on the right so evidently do. My view is that my medical insurance should follow me and not be dependent on whether I have work and an employer willing to shoulder the burden of providing it. Further, I feel I should be getting something back for myself for my tax dollars, and health care is a good place to start. I distrust big business (here, in the guise of big pharma and big insurance companies) far more than those of you on the right. Truly, they worship the Almighty Dollar and value it far more than they do human beings.

"Truly, they worship the Almighty Dollar and value it far more than they do human beings."
No doubt about that.

"My view is that my medical insurance should follow me and not be dependent on whether I have work and an employer willing to shoulder the burden of providing it."
Right! And relaxing many of the terrible laws that prevent purchasing insurance that fits your wants and needs and preventing competition across state lines would be a good step towards that.
"I distrust big business (here, in the guise of big pharma and big insurance companies) far more than those of you on the right."
I don't think that follows. The government is a BIG ONE, where as big pharma and big insurance is actually made up of over 30,000 companies. When you take that and combine it into a big one, then the problems will increase in unimaginable and horrible ways. Personally I have a feeling that anything "too big to fail" as both GW and Obama have said, is "too big to exist".
"I should be getting something back for myself for my tax dollars"
Right, and politicians of all stripes and colors have been robbing the American people for a long time. Compare increases in government revenue with the resultant changes in services. The most comprehensive one I know of was done for California.
"Truly, they worship the Almighty Dollar and value it far more than they do human beings. "
If you're using English well, and I have seen enough of your ability to fairly guess that you are, then the antecedant to "they" is "the right". Surely this is true for some. It's a sad travesty. Do you also concede that for the left? If not, I can provide a bevy of relevant examples.
The more money we pile into Washington, the more crooks there will be to rob us all.
"The problem is, we HAVE ALREADY abdicated our responsibility"
Really? Jot down the names of the next 3 hospitals you pass by. And the big point I was making, is this: Have YOU abdicated YOUR responsibility? "But what about John," no.. have YOU done something to help those who haven't helped themselves? "But what about.. " no, have YOU done something to feed the hungry?
There are already mechanisms in place in this country to provide health care, food, clothing, and basic income to the sick, hurting, hungry and cold. If you walk into a hospital, you will get treated. If they fail to treat you by accepted standards, they have broken the law. This is besides the fact that 11.5M of the 47M uninsured are eligible for government programs and havent' signed up and will be covered POST FACT if they encounter medical problems and sign up. I've been out on the streets in DC and offered blankets and food and a van ride to the nearest shelter. I've seen the vast majority turn it down (blankets they usually take, sometimes food).
Ultimately the more money we give to the government to do OUR job, taking care of those who cannot help themselves, the less ability we will have to do it, and the less efficiently it will be done. Gubment is not efficient. Volunteer heavy charities motivated by people with a core belief and even world view that we are required to take care of those around us are very efficient. I think WLCraig is very smart to point out that the limits on charitable giving are an intentional hamstringing of an effective outlet to take care of people. It demonstrates a motive of shrewd political manuevering rather than a concern for those less fortunate. It's sad.

I think this is pertinent to the discussion as well:
http://www.breakpoint.org/commentaries/12316-heal...
Alongside this :
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%...
(question for the passage above: What is the objection and how does Jesus respond? What is given the highest priority?)

>> JAMES: Really? Jot down the names of the next 3 hospitals you pass by.
James, just because the Hospitals around us are all created by and run by Lutherans and Catholics does not mean that we are *currently* doing our part as the Church.
Now, I do know that, as documented in Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, religious conservatives give more of their time and money to charity than liberals.
But if there are poor in your community, let me ask you, how much resources does your church give to helping them?

Mine? A lot. I don't brag. I'm humbled by the community that I count myself among. If you believe, really believe in the God of the bible, and in His redemptive work through his Son and on the cross and with His resurrection, then it necessarily affects the way you live. I think so much of the "church" isn't, and those in the Church need to continue to be a light, and be salt, and learn and grow in His grace and likeness.
More than that, there's a lot of churches in our area that are commited to living out the gospel. Check out this group that is not talking, but walking and doing: http://www.catalystweb.org/
I'm excited because I think we're poised for another great awakening. But if that's true or no, I go right back to the words you shared in your sermon on John 8. What are YOU… That's what I concern myself with.

I view your "Great Awakening" with fear and trepidation because it means more oppression and persecution under the guise of law for myself (just look at daniel for an example of what we're in for).
btw: I admit the antecedent of my pronoun was a bit vague. But if you'll look at it again, the "right" was in a prepositional phrase while the subject of the sentence "they" refers to was big business and was the group under discussion (of course, so far as the "right" supports b.b. they are also at fault). Whatever our government's failings, I still trust it far more than I do the business world – a good reason to separate the two even more thoroughly.

James, perhaps I was too harsh on the contemporary churches that are actually spiritually alive, and there has in the last few decades been huge emphasis on being Missional.
But I don't want to sugarcoat the failures of the church in our age as if we've done a great job with service, evangelism, love and truth.
Nice to see the Catalyst churches doing stuff.

>> LOUIS: Whatever our government's failings, I still trust it far more than I do the business world – a good reason to separate the two even more thoroughly.
In a country that lacks the virtues of honesty, industry, and generosity, you may be tempted to trust the rigid structure of government and laws over the free market. But again, this is trading freedom for security – it is TAKING freedom away to ensure security.
But you can only go so far in that direction before you become a military-led and controlled Superstate. I think the reality is, we want neither pole – neither Anarchism/Libertarianism, which rely too much on man's goodness, nor Socialism, which relies on man's badness and need to be tightly controlled.
I lean toward wanting a society of freedom and virtue, and I am skeeved and worried by the growin state – the founders knew that this is a REAL danger, hence the Bill of Rights, which outline OUR rights to be protected FROM government.
I would rather have more freedom, and depend on public sentiment to shift. Legal means, imo, should only be used when there is mortal or other significant danger, and ONLY until the balance of virtue can be restored.
If a people lack virtue, no government system can solve social problems and keep order. It's that simple.

Hi Daniel:
In a country that lacks the virtues of honesty, industry, and generosity, you may be tempted to trust the rigid structure of government and laws over the free market. But again, this is trading freedom for security – it is TAKING freedom away to ensure security.
I think you are wrong to equate the free market with Freedom. The free market provides freedom for those who own a lot of property, much less freedom for the have nots, since the free market is based on one dollar, one vote. Government rules, on the other hand, can help free those who have fewer dollars from the bad things that can happen when the market ignores their needs for the needs of those who have more dollars. Realistically, the optimal system is a mix of markets and government rules, I'd say.
your friend
Keith

I wasn't talking about the country at large but about the "business world" (reread what I wrote). Do you seriously expect these sharks and wolves to be people of civic virtue? Recent history should put that delusion to rest once and for all. When the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar is the sole purpose of life don't expect selfless pursuit of the common good. At least with the government we have the possibility of humane response to health concerns rather than the for-profit motivations of the health carriers.

Hi Louis:
Exactly right about government. At least with government we have the opportunity to throw the rascals out if they behave badly. The private sector? Not so much as evidenced by the last few years of corporate failure.
your friend
Keith

I wonder how this general good trust of government and mistrust of private enterprise, especially in the mind of those here with liberal/democratic tendencies, intersects with Obama and Big Pharma agreements, or Murtha and the unfolding PMA scandal, or the Dodd/Conrad Countrywide loans scandal, etc.?
Not to say that corruption and scandal is intrinsically or even more likely to be a liberal or democratic event, but rather to say that even the adherents of the model that big government is better than big money, find themselves intertwined, one to the other. There's plenty on the right and of Republican name.
BUT… Those that are voted in by people who have more of a trust of big government than big money, end up joining the two no more effectively than a mating pair. How quickly did Obama override his own executive order not to bring into the administration those who were registered lobbyists in a recent time frame? 36 hours? 48?
I think it's a bit idealistic to think that somehow big government and big money aren't tied. In fact, you seem to me, to be walking towards a small government argument. As long as the government is a hording place of a great load of monies, the crook politicians, and the greedy lobbyists, will gather there and take their pounds of flesh. As long as Washington DC is the massive repository of power and the ability to wield unstoppable naked force, then the power hungry despots will gather there, and see how much more they can push and take.

Conservatives always say they want smaller government and less gov't intrusion in our lives, but when they get in power the opposite happens (especially when it comes to intrusion in our private lives via socially conservative morality legislation and bigger military and spying on citizens). I don't believe them any more than I do anyone else.

I thought this was a good discussion on health care reform…
Al Franken vs. Teabaggers