CDZ Ben Shapiro explains why healthcare is not a Right, it is a commodity, and subject to freedom...

[2aguy]

A question for the Libertarian/Conservatives.

Would you accept a universal healthcare system if it was cheaper/more cost efficient, as it's proven to be in almost every OECD country? In other words, would you accept it if it had ZERO impact on your life/financial expenses/overall economy?

There is no evidence that any government run program in the U.S. has ever been more (financially) efficient than private enterprise.

How about the G.I Bill which provided millions of Americans access to higher education, cheap housing, and healthcare, which also subsequently led to the creation of the largest middle class in the world? Or Eisenhower's programs to help build the international federal highway system? In fact it wasn't until the deregulation/semi privatization of major industry and banking, which occurred under the Reagan's administration, when wealth inequality started increasing and our infrastructure stagnated.

"Universal Healthcare" limits choice, by definition, limits incentives for innovation, and generally stifles growth. So yeah, I would reject it.

This is neoliberal nonsense. Growth and innovation in, which occurred most during the 1950s to 1970s, happened under governments that spent the most on social welfare programs. See above. There is ZERO evidence that a majorily privatized nation would spur "incentives for innovation." That's like saying that people won't invent anything if they don't get paid a lot of money (if you think that, you probably have never met artists, scientists, or entrepreneurs that hundreds of times more passionate about their craft/what they produce t than money, power, and status)

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

 

[2aguy]

A question for the Libertarian/Conservatives.

Would you accept a universal healthcare system if it was cheaper/more cost efficient, as it's proven to be in almost every OECD country? In other words, would you accept it if it had ZERO impact on your life/financial expenses/overall economy?

There is no evidence that any government run program in the U.S. has ever been more (financially) efficient than private enterprise.

How about the G.I Bill which provided millions of Americans access to higher education, cheap housing, and healthcare, which also subsequently led to the creation of the largest middle class in the world? Or Eisenhower's programs to help build the international federal highway system? In fact it wasn't until the deregulation/semi privatization of major industry and banking, which occurred under the Reagan's administration, when wealth inequality started increasing and our infrastructure stagnated.

"Universal Healthcare" limits choice, by definition, limits incentives for innovation, and generally stifles growth. So yeah, I would reject it.

This is neoliberal nonsense. Growth and innovation in, which occurred most during the 1950s to 1970s, happened under governments that spent the most on social welfare programs. See above. There is ZERO evidence that a majorily privatized nation would spur "incentives for innovation." That's like saying that people won't invent anything if they don't get paid a lot of money (if you think that, you probably have never met artists, scientists, or entrepreneurs that hundreds of times more passionate about their craft/what they produce t than money, power, and status)

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

You can't simply tell doctors.....we will pay you this much for a medicare patient even though it actually costs you more to treat that patient....and then call that Market forces.....

The doctors will respond with a market solution...and stop seeing those patients...

One In Five Doctors Say: “No New Medicare Patients” | Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

 

[mgh80]

Can we stop paying for ER visits of those who're uninsured then? You can't have it both ways: it's all or nothing.

 

[D Truth]

The problem isn't "healthcare", it is the racketeer, gangster, extortionist practice of "insurance" itself.
Think about it.

"Hey, lets make something everyone probably needs so unaffordable that we are able to generate a steady stream of over inflated income for doing nothing!" - said the asshole who invented health insurance.

When will people realize that when you buy "insurance" you are no different from some sopranos character buying "protection" from the mob? You are buying NOTHING!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Shapiro presents an artfully developed video essay; however it suffers from a key flaw, health is a determining factor to the durability of life, and our nation is founded on notion that life is among man's inalienable rights. Furthermore, Shapiro conflates the act of procuring/delivering health care procedures in a monetized society with the concept of health care.

Think of the another object to which we all have a right: the right to property. Why do we have such a right? We have it because it exists outside codes of law. Quite simply animals are territorial, even plants are. No two things can occupy the same space at the same point in time. Yes, humans have applied a construct of money on top of the natural laws that make that be so, but artificially formed structures or not, the right nonetheless exists and cannot be denied.

Shapiro is good at considering the matter within the terms of the economic systems we have in place; however, he has ignored the fact that the inalienability of rights, whether any given right is so or not, must be considered outside of such constructs.

 

[JoeMoma]

This video by Ben Shapiro points out the actual truth of healthcare...it is not a Right....because you cannot force a doctor to treat you without turning that Doctor into a slave....taking away their freedom to practice their medical profession without coercion.....

I find it to be hypocrisy, by those who claim who claim that it's not a right to have healthcare in America, yet claim to be Christians..
We are alleged Christian nation, at least when it comes to saying "Merry Christmas", Muslims and including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And of course, the Republican Party claims to be the "party of God".
In the Bible, there are multiple verses, telling Christians to take care of the sick and healing people. Jesus healed people for free..
The United States is the only country where healthcare in not a right. Yet In God's eyes, healthcare is a right.
So which is it? America is or isn't a Christian nation?

True, but the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me. It is between each individual Christian and God how much he is willing and able to sacrifice to care for others. It's not the government forcibly taking (redistributing) from one to help another.

 

[usmbguest5318]

the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me.

That is a semantically and contextually convenient way to describe what amounts to nothing other than doing one of the things on which the Bible is not even close to silent: helping the poor and downtrodden individuals among humanity.

In case there is doubt in your mind about a Christian's duty to the poor:

• “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Duet 15:11)
• The Hungry:
  • When Jesus fed the thousands, He did not first check to see if they would be His disciples. He did not require them to come to Him for salvation. He simply filled a need by filling empty stomachs. Feeding the poor does not define the Christian; it is part of being a Christian.
• Alms for the Poor:Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.
  • Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
  • First John 3:17 states that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
  • Job wrote, “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12).
  • In Isaiah 58:7 God asks, “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 them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
  • We also need to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-9).
  • In fact, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov 29:7).
• The consequence of ignoring the needs of the poor:
  • “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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.’ 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?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ (Matthew 25:41-45).
  • Sodom sinned the sin of not helping the poor as they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezk 16:49).
• The reason for helping the poor:
  • “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses” (Prov 28:27).
    
  • “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
    
  • “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor” (Prov 22:9)
  • “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov 28:20).
  • “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done” (Prov 19:17).
  • How interesting that King Solomon wrote more on helping the poor than anyone of his time. He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man of his time and place. Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence? God does not believe in coincidences. He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence…it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”
    
  • “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’ (Matt 25:40).

But isn’t that duty just about the behavior of individual Christians? Does the Bible expect anything like that from governments?

Since the Hebrew Scriptures speak more of government than the New Testament does, let me remind you of a few of the relevant passages. In the Psalms: In Psalm 72:1, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:

• "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."

And what will justice and righteousness look like in a monarch?

• We more commonly use “justice” to mean “punishment,” as in “bring Saddam to justice.” And “righteousness,” in 21st-century English, describes a person who doesn’t do the sins we find most objectionable. But justice and righteousness are much more actively positive in Bible-talk. Here’s how Solomon describes their impact on a king: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." (Psalms 72:4)

Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God. Like Jesus, Solomon does not care for the needy because he fears for punishment if he doesn’t. He does it because they are precious to him!

"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalms 72:12-14)
​

In the Prophets, examples abound. Taking just one, here’s how Isaiah confronts his own generation:

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is. 1)
​

We most commonly think of repentance as quitting the bad stuff. But that’s only half of the Bible’s view. See both in “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right”? And what will “do right” look like to Isaiah? You’ll recognize it:

"Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:17)
​

But what about in law? What if God himself designed an economy? According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Perhaps the Bible’s wisdom here is exactly what partisan politics tends to forget: both individual character (which the right sees as the root cause of poverty and wealth) and cultural inequality (seen similarly by the left) have to be addressed for poverty to be defeated. A truly Christian view is neither right nor left (modern distinctions, again) but a third way that combines the best of both. One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and church. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least.​

But those are principles for a theocracy. Does the Bible say anything about governments that weren’t Jewish? Yes; it speaks of:

All governments: Apparently, God intends to judge all governments on quality of their care for the poor. Here’s an example from Psalm 9:7:

• "The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."

Those same positive qualities that Solomon sought, justice and righteousness, become the yardsticks by which God will judge governments of “the world.”

Babylon: Daniel lays the same responsibilities on the government of the king of Babylon (certainly no Jahweh-follower!), in Daniel 4:27:

• "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

An Arab government: And in the Proverbs, King Lemuel, an Arab monarch, has been taught from childhood :

• "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. …Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:4-9)

All governments (from the N.T.): In the New Testament, notice the similar tone of Romans 13, where Paul writes that all governments are “established by God,” and accountable to him to do good and to punish wrong. Again, the charge to secular government is two-fold. And remember, in Jesus’ eyes, standing-by while the poor suffer is wrong, and he sternly warns the rich that they may be punished for it.​

​

Could God be pleased by voters demanding that their government collect taxes to care for the poor?

God views neglect of the poor as evil, worthy of punishment. Further, he holds governments responsible for making sure that the needs of the poor are defended. The Bible assumes that some will ignore the poor or deprive them of rights that the rich enjoy, and God charges government with the responsibility for correction and prevention of such sin.
Taxation seems like a pretty mild way of enforcing a minimal level of shared responsibility for the human family, where people have failed to take it upon themselves. I say “mild” because God enjoins government to defend and support the poor, even to the extent of Solomon’s “crush the oppressor,” and (in Romans), government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.”

Perhaps this is where our culture is most at odds with the Bible: Neglect of the poor is sin. Wealth is evil unless it results in sacrifice for others. Once again, how different from modern practice, where gaining wealth is esteemed for its own sake.​

How is the role of individuals distinguished in the Bible from that of families and churches?

Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”

In the U.S., thousands of people die prematurely each year because they, for instance, haven't health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!

Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.

Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important -- perhaps even even Biblically so. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must demand that our government fulfill its role. That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society's individuals have failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.

I am a Christian. I will pray; I will learn; I will give. I am also a writer and a voter. And I hold in my hands the power to urge my government to become a bit more just and a bit less selfish. May I use it, as Solomon might "to defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; [and to] crush the oppressor."
​

Sure as I have shared the forgoing thoughts, it comes to mind that you, perhaps other readers are not Christians. If that is so, well, I haven't much to offer other than that you consult secularly evolved philosophy on the matter of morality and ethics.

 

[regent]

This video by Ben Shapiro points out the actual truth of healthcare...it is not a Right....because you cannot force a doctor to treat you without turning that Doctor into a slave....taking away their freedom to practice their medical profession without coercion.....

I find it to be hypocrisy, by those who claim who claim that it's not a right to have healthcare in America, yet claim to be Christians..
We are alleged Christian nation, at least when it comes to saying "Merry Christmas", Muslims and including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And of course, the Republican Party claims to be the "party of God".
In the Bible, there are multiple verses, telling Christians to take care of the sick and healing people. Jesus healed people for free..
The United States is the only country where healthcare in not a right. Yet In God's eyes, healthcare is a right.
So which is it? America is or isn't a Christian nation?

There is something inherent in the american psyche that requires a subset of the population be punished and made to suffer, possibly caught up in this ridiculous notion of original sin. American society has always required someone, some group to look down upon and punish, who better than the poor. They have no voice and no power, and the vote as an instrument by which society can right itself is clearly fiction at this point. America had never been anything other than a colonial societal wealth extraction enterprise. And it still is.

Please......answer this question.....

We have the Veteran's Administration, specifically designed and targeted to provide healthcare for the small number of vets in our country.....and the government can't even do that right....we have vets dying on fake waiting lists because the bureacracy can't handle providing healthcare for this small community....

So please...tell us.....how do you expect the same bureaucrats, politicians who run this system...to run healthcare for 320 million people.....please...tell us how that works out....

The VA is required to take service-incurred cases first, the non-service incurred, as space permits. The VA is a bad example of comparing government health systems. If one wants to use the military as an example, then how is the care in army and navy hospitals?

 

[2aguy]

the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me.

That is a semantically and contextually convenient way to describe what amounts to nothing other than doing one of the things on which the Bible is not even close to silent: helping the poor and downtrodden individuals among humanity.

In case there is doubt in your mind about a Christian's duty to the poor:

• “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Duet 15:11)
• The Hungry:
  • When Jesus fed the thousands, He did not first check to see if they would be His disciples. He did not require them to come to Him for salvation. He simply filled a need by filling empty stomachs. Feeding the poor does not define the Christian; it is part of being a Christian.
• Alms for the Poor:Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.
  • Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
  • First John 3:17 states that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
  • Job wrote, “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12).
  • In Isaiah 58:7 God asks, “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 them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
  • We also need to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-9).
  • In fact, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov 29:7).
• The consequence of ignoring the needs of the poor:
  • “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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.’ 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?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ (Matthew 25:41-45).
  • Sodom sinned the sin of not helping the poor as they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezk 16:49).
• The reason for helping the poor:
  • “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses” (Prov 28:27).
    
  • “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
    
  • “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor” (Prov 22:9)
  • “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov 28:20).
  • “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done” (Prov 19:17).
  • How interesting that King Solomon wrote more on helping the poor than anyone of his time. He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man of his time and place. Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence? God does not believe in coincidences. He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence…it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”
    
  • “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’ (Matt 25:40).

But isn’t that duty just about the behavior of individual Christians? Does the Bible expect anything like that from governments?

Since the Hebrew Scriptures speak more of government than the New Testament does, let me remind you of a few of the relevant passages. In the Psalms: In Psalm 72:1, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:

• "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."

And what will justice and righteousness look like in a monarch?

• We more commonly use “justice” to mean “punishment,” as in “bring Saddam to justice.” And “righteousness,” in 21st-century English, describes a person who doesn’t do the sins we find most objectionable. But justice and righteousness are much more actively positive in Bible-talk. Here’s how Solomon describes their impact on a king: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." (Psalms 72:4)

Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God. Like Jesus, Solomon does not care for the needy because he fears for punishment if he doesn’t. He does it because they are precious to him!

"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalms 72:12-14)
​

In the Prophets, examples abound. Taking just one, here’s how Isaiah confronts his own generation:

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is. 1)
​

We most commonly think of repentance as quitting the bad stuff. But that’s only half of the Bible’s view. See both in “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right”? And what will “do right” look like to Isaiah? You’ll recognize it:

"Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:17)
​

But what about in law? What if God himself designed an economy? According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Perhaps the Bible’s wisdom here is exactly what partisan politics tends to forget: both individual character (which the right sees as the root cause of poverty and wealth) and cultural inequality (seen similarly by the left) have to be addressed for poverty to be defeated. A truly Christian view is neither right nor left (modern distinctions, again) but a third way that combines the best of both. One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and church. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least.​

But those are principles for a theocracy. Does the Bible say anything about governments that weren’t Jewish? Yes; it speaks of:

All governments: Apparently, God intends to judge all governments on quality of their care for the poor. Here’s an example from Psalm 9:7:

• "The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."

Those same positive qualities that Solomon sought, justice and righteousness, become the yardsticks by which God will judge governments of “the world.”

Babylon: Daniel lays the same responsibilities on the government of the king of Babylon (certainly no Jahweh-follower!), in Daniel 4:27:

• "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

An Arab government: And in the Proverbs, King Lemuel, an Arab monarch, has been taught from childhood :

• "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. …Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:4-9)

All governments (from the N.T.): In the New Testament, notice the similar tone of Romans 13, where Paul writes that all governments are “established by God,” and accountable to him to do good and to punish wrong. Again, the charge to secular government is two-fold. And remember, in Jesus’ eyes, standing-by while the poor suffer is wrong, and he sternly warns the rich that they may be punished for it.​

​

Could God be pleased by voters demanding that their government collect taxes to care for the poor?

God views neglect of the poor as evil, worthy of punishment. Further, he holds governments responsible for making sure that the needs of the poor are defended. The Bible assumes that some will ignore the poor or deprive them of rights that the rich enjoy, and God charges government with the responsibility for correction and prevention of such sin.
Taxation seems like a pretty mild way of enforcing a minimal level of shared responsibility for the human family, where people have failed to take it upon themselves. I say “mild” because God enjoins government to defend and support the poor, even to the extent of Solomon’s “crush the oppressor,” and (in Romans), government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.”

Perhaps this is where our culture is most at odds with the Bible: Neglect of the poor is sin. Wealth is evil unless it results in sacrifice for others. Once again, how different from modern practice, where gaining wealth is esteemed for its own sake.​

How is the role of individuals distinguished in the Bible from that of families and churches?

Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”

In the U.S., thousands of people die prematurely each year because they, for instance, haven't health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!

Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.

Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important -- perhaps even even Biblically so. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must demand that our government fulfill its role. That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society's individuals have failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.

I am a Christian. I will pray; I will learn; I will give. I am also a writer and a voter. And I hold in my hands the power to urge my government to become a bit more just and a bit less selfish. May I use it, as Solomon might "to defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; [and to] crush the oppressor."
​

Sure as I have shared the forgoing thoughts, it comes to mind that you, perhaps other readers are not Christians. If that is so, well, I haven't much to offer other than that you consult secularly evolved philosophy on the matter of morality and ethics.

And how does a thing you posted justify forcibly extracting money from one to give to another?

 

[usmbguest5318]

the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me.

That is a semantically and contextually convenient way to describe what amounts to nothing other than doing one of the things on which the Bible is not even close to silent: helping the poor and downtrodden individuals among humanity.

In case there is doubt in your mind about a Christian's duty to the poor:

• “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Duet 15:11)
• The Hungry:
  • When Jesus fed the thousands, He did not first check to see if they would be His disciples. He did not require them to come to Him for salvation. He simply filled a need by filling empty stomachs. Feeding the poor does not define the Christian; it is part of being a Christian.
• Alms for the Poor:Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.
  • Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
  • First John 3:17 states that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
  • Job wrote, “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12).
  • In Isaiah 58:7 God asks, “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 them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
  • We also need to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-9).
  • In fact, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov 29:7).
• The consequence of ignoring the needs of the poor:
  • “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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.’ 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?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ (Matthew 25:41-45).
  • Sodom sinned the sin of not helping the poor as they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezk 16:49).
• The reason for helping the poor:
  • “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses” (Prov 28:27).
    
  • “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
    
  • “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor” (Prov 22:9)
  • “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov 28:20).
  • “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done” (Prov 19:17).
  • How interesting that King Solomon wrote more on helping the poor than anyone of his time. He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man of his time and place. Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence? God does not believe in coincidences. He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence…it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”
    
  • “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’ (Matt 25:40).

But isn’t that duty just about the behavior of individual Christians? Does the Bible expect anything like that from governments?

Since the Hebrew Scriptures speak more of government than the New Testament does, let me remind you of a few of the relevant passages. In the Psalms: In Psalm 72:1, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:

• "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."

And what will justice and righteousness look like in a monarch?

• We more commonly use “justice” to mean “punishment,” as in “bring Saddam to justice.” And “righteousness,” in 21st-century English, describes a person who doesn’t do the sins we find most objectionable. But justice and righteousness are much more actively positive in Bible-talk. Here’s how Solomon describes their impact on a king: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." (Psalms 72:4)

Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God. Like Jesus, Solomon does not care for the needy because he fears for punishment if he doesn’t. He does it because they are precious to him!

"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalms 72:12-14)
​

In the Prophets, examples abound. Taking just one, here’s how Isaiah confronts his own generation:

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is. 1)
​

We most commonly think of repentance as quitting the bad stuff. But that’s only half of the Bible’s view. See both in “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right”? And what will “do right” look like to Isaiah? You’ll recognize it:

"Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:17)
​

But what about in law? What if God himself designed an economy? According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Perhaps the Bible’s wisdom here is exactly what partisan politics tends to forget: both individual character (which the right sees as the root cause of poverty and wealth) and cultural inequality (seen similarly by the left) have to be addressed for poverty to be defeated. A truly Christian view is neither right nor left (modern distinctions, again) but a third way that combines the best of both. One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and church. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least.​

But those are principles for a theocracy. Does the Bible say anything about governments that weren’t Jewish? Yes; it speaks of:

All governments: Apparently, God intends to judge all governments on quality of their care for the poor. Here’s an example from Psalm 9:7:

• "The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."

Those same positive qualities that Solomon sought, justice and righteousness, become the yardsticks by which God will judge governments of “the world.”

Babylon: Daniel lays the same responsibilities on the government of the king of Babylon (certainly no Jahweh-follower!), in Daniel 4:27:

• "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

An Arab government: And in the Proverbs, King Lemuel, an Arab monarch, has been taught from childhood :

• "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. …Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:4-9)

All governments (from the N.T.): In the New Testament, notice the similar tone of Romans 13, where Paul writes that all governments are “established by God,” and accountable to him to do good and to punish wrong. Again, the charge to secular government is two-fold. And remember, in Jesus’ eyes, standing-by while the poor suffer is wrong, and he sternly warns the rich that they may be punished for it.​

​

Could God be pleased by voters demanding that their government collect taxes to care for the poor?

God views neglect of the poor as evil, worthy of punishment. Further, he holds governments responsible for making sure that the needs of the poor are defended. The Bible assumes that some will ignore the poor or deprive them of rights that the rich enjoy, and God charges government with the responsibility for correction and prevention of such sin.
Taxation seems like a pretty mild way of enforcing a minimal level of shared responsibility for the human family, where people have failed to take it upon themselves. I say “mild” because God enjoins government to defend and support the poor, even to the extent of Solomon’s “crush the oppressor,” and (in Romans), government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.”

Perhaps this is where our culture is most at odds with the Bible: Neglect of the poor is sin. Wealth is evil unless it results in sacrifice for others. Once again, how different from modern practice, where gaining wealth is esteemed for its own sake.​

How is the role of individuals distinguished in the Bible from that of families and churches?

Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”

In the U.S., thousands of people die prematurely each year because they, for instance, haven't health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!

Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.

Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important -- perhaps even even Biblically so. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must demand that our government fulfill its role. That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society's individuals have failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.

I am a Christian. I will pray; I will learn; I will give. I am also a writer and a voter. And I hold in my hands the power to urge my government to become a bit more just and a bit less selfish. May I use it, as Solomon might "to defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; [and to] crush the oppressor."
​

Sure as I have shared the forgoing thoughts, it comes to mind that you, perhaps other readers are not Christians. If that is so, well, I haven't much to offer other than that you consult secularly evolved philosophy on the matter of morality and ethics.

And how does a thing you posted justify forcibly extracting money from one to give to another?

If you read it carefully, you'll have noticed that what I posted attests to what the Bible says and implies about whether one individually, and governments on the collective behalf of a citizenry, have an obligation to aid the poor and downtrodden.

 

[2aguy]

the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me.

That is a semantically and contextually convenient way to describe what amounts to nothing other than doing one of the things on which the Bible is not even close to silent: helping the poor and downtrodden individuals among humanity.

In case there is doubt in your mind about a Christian's duty to the poor:

• “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Duet 15:11)
• The Hungry:
  • When Jesus fed the thousands, He did not first check to see if they would be His disciples. He did not require them to come to Him for salvation. He simply filled a need by filling empty stomachs. Feeding the poor does not define the Christian; it is part of being a Christian.
• Alms for the Poor:Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.
  • Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
  • First John 3:17 states that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
  • Job wrote, “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12).
  • In Isaiah 58:7 God asks, “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 them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
  • We also need to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-9).
  • In fact, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov 29:7).
• The consequence of ignoring the needs of the poor:
  • “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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.’ 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?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ (Matthew 25:41-45).
  • Sodom sinned the sin of not helping the poor as they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezk 16:49).
• The reason for helping the poor:
  • “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses” (Prov 28:27).
    
  • “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
    
  • “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor” (Prov 22:9)
  • “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov 28:20).
  • “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done” (Prov 19:17).
  • How interesting that King Solomon wrote more on helping the poor than anyone of his time. He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man of his time and place. Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence? God does not believe in coincidences. He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence…it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”
    
  • “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’ (Matt 25:40).

But isn’t that duty just about the behavior of individual Christians? Does the Bible expect anything like that from governments?

Since the Hebrew Scriptures speak more of government than the New Testament does, let me remind you of a few of the relevant passages. In the Psalms: In Psalm 72:1, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:

• "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."

And what will justice and righteousness look like in a monarch?

• We more commonly use “justice” to mean “punishment,” as in “bring Saddam to justice.” And “righteousness,” in 21st-century English, describes a person who doesn’t do the sins we find most objectionable. But justice and righteousness are much more actively positive in Bible-talk. Here’s how Solomon describes their impact on a king: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." (Psalms 72:4)

Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God. Like Jesus, Solomon does not care for the needy because he fears for punishment if he doesn’t. He does it because they are precious to him!

"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalms 72:12-14)
​

In the Prophets, examples abound. Taking just one, here’s how Isaiah confronts his own generation:

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is. 1)
​

We most commonly think of repentance as quitting the bad stuff. But that’s only half of the Bible’s view. See both in “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right”? And what will “do right” look like to Isaiah? You’ll recognize it:

"Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:17)
​

But what about in law? What if God himself designed an economy? According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Perhaps the Bible’s wisdom here is exactly what partisan politics tends to forget: both individual character (which the right sees as the root cause of poverty and wealth) and cultural inequality (seen similarly by the left) have to be addressed for poverty to be defeated. A truly Christian view is neither right nor left (modern distinctions, again) but a third way that combines the best of both. One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and church. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least.​

But those are principles for a theocracy. Does the Bible say anything about governments that weren’t Jewish? Yes; it speaks of:

All governments: Apparently, God intends to judge all governments on quality of their care for the poor. Here’s an example from Psalm 9:7:

• "The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."

Those same positive qualities that Solomon sought, justice and righteousness, become the yardsticks by which God will judge governments of “the world.”

Babylon: Daniel lays the same responsibilities on the government of the king of Babylon (certainly no Jahweh-follower!), in Daniel 4:27:

• "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

An Arab government: And in the Proverbs, King Lemuel, an Arab monarch, has been taught from childhood :

• "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. …Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:4-9)

All governments (from the N.T.): In the New Testament, notice the similar tone of Romans 13, where Paul writes that all governments are “established by God,” and accountable to him to do good and to punish wrong. Again, the charge to secular government is two-fold. And remember, in Jesus’ eyes, standing-by while the poor suffer is wrong, and he sternly warns the rich that they may be punished for it.​

​

Could God be pleased by voters demanding that their government collect taxes to care for the poor?

God views neglect of the poor as evil, worthy of punishment. Further, he holds governments responsible for making sure that the needs of the poor are defended. The Bible assumes that some will ignore the poor or deprive them of rights that the rich enjoy, and God charges government with the responsibility for correction and prevention of such sin.
Taxation seems like a pretty mild way of enforcing a minimal level of shared responsibility for the human family, where people have failed to take it upon themselves. I say “mild” because God enjoins government to defend and support the poor, even to the extent of Solomon’s “crush the oppressor,” and (in Romans), government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.”

Perhaps this is where our culture is most at odds with the Bible: Neglect of the poor is sin. Wealth is evil unless it results in sacrifice for others. Once again, how different from modern practice, where gaining wealth is esteemed for its own sake.​

How is the role of individuals distinguished in the Bible from that of families and churches?

Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”

In the U.S., thousands of people die prematurely each year because they, for instance, haven't health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!

Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.

Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important -- perhaps even even Biblically so. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must demand that our government fulfill its role. That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society's individuals have failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.

I am a Christian. I will pray; I will learn; I will give. I am also a writer and a voter. And I hold in my hands the power to urge my government to become a bit more just and a bit less selfish. May I use it, as Solomon might "to defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; [and to] crush the oppressor."
​

Sure as I have shared the forgoing thoughts, it comes to mind that you, perhaps other readers are not Christians. If that is so, well, I haven't much to offer other than that you consult secularly evolved philosophy on the matter of morality and ethics.

And how does a thing you posted justify forcibly extracting money from one to give to another?

If you read it carefully, you'll have noticed that what I posted attests to what the Bible says and implies about whether one individually, and governments on the collective behalf of a citizenry, have an obligation to aid the poor and downtrodden.

Yep..
But where does it say that you forcibly extract that money in order to do it.......? Where does it say it is okay to take money from one guy, give it to a 3rd guy and then the original taker is a saint?

 

[usmbguest5318]

the bible does not tell me to help other people by taking from others what does not belong to me.

That is a semantically and contextually convenient way to describe what amounts to nothing other than doing one of the things on which the Bible is not even close to silent: helping the poor and downtrodden individuals among humanity.

In case there is doubt in your mind about a Christian's duty to the poor:

• “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land” (Duet 15:11)
• The Hungry:
  • When Jesus fed the thousands, He did not first check to see if they would be His disciples. He did not require them to come to Him for salvation. He simply filled a need by filling empty stomachs. Feeding the poor does not define the Christian; it is part of being a Christian.
• Alms for the Poor:Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are. Christians are commanded to help one another but we are also called to help those who are less fortunate than we are.
  • Proverbs 21:13 is among the most powerful calls from God to help those who are hungry because “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”
  • First John 3:17 states that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?”
  • Job wrote, “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist them” (Job 29:12).
  • In Isaiah 58:7 God asks, “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 them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?"
  • We also need to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-9).
  • In fact, “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern” (Prov 29:7).
• The consequence of ignoring the needs of the poor:
  • “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. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I 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.’ 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?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me‘“ (Matthew 25:41-45).
  • Sodom sinned the sin of not helping the poor as they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezk 16:49).
• The reason for helping the poor:
  • “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses” (Prov 28:27).
    
  • “Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life” (1 Tim 6:18-19).
    
  • “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor” (Prov 22:9)
  • “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov 28:20).
  • “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward him for what he has done” (Prov 19:17).
  • How interesting that King Solomon wrote more on helping the poor than anyone of his time. He writes much about the wisdom of helping the poor, even though he was the richest man of his time and place. Was his wealth and generosity a coincidence? God does not believe in coincidences. He blesses those who bless others. That is no coincidence…it is cause and effect. This is what Ecclesiastes 11:1 means, “Cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again.”
    
  • “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’ (Matt 25:40).

But isn’t that duty just about the behavior of individual Christians? Does the Bible expect anything like that from governments?

Since the Hebrew Scriptures speak more of government than the New Testament does, let me remind you of a few of the relevant passages. In the Psalms: In Psalm 72:1, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:

• "Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness."

And what will justice and righteousness look like in a monarch?

• We more commonly use “justice” to mean “punishment,” as in “bring Saddam to justice.” And “righteousness,” in 21st-century English, describes a person who doesn’t do the sins we find most objectionable. But justice and righteousness are much more actively positive in Bible-talk. Here’s how Solomon describes their impact on a king: "He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor." (Psalms 72:4)

Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God. Like Jesus, Solomon does not care for the needy because he fears for punishment if he doesn’t. He does it because they are precious to him!

"For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalms 72:12-14)
​

In the Prophets, examples abound. Taking just one, here’s how Isaiah confronts his own generation:

"Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is. 1)
​

We most commonly think of repentance as quitting the bad stuff. But that’s only half of the Bible’s view. See both in “Stop doing wrong, learn to do right”? And what will “do right” look like to Isaiah? You’ll recognize it:

"Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow." (Is. 1:17)
​

But what about in law? What if God himself designed an economy? According to Leviticus, he did. An agrarian society, the Jews in the Promised Land divided land equally among families. Land, of course, was the means of providing for oneself and one’s family. There was ownership, inheritance, private property. Some gained much wealth; some lost what they had.

But there was a remarkable (even radical, to modern minds) twist: every 50 years the land returned to its original owners. Every 50 years, every family had equal access to the means of producing wealth. Those who had gained much knew it was only for a time. Those who lost everything knew they’d get another try. No family would get too rich; none would get too poor. No dynasties; no underclass.

It is neither socialism nor capitalism (which are modern distinctions), but a mix of the benefits of ownership with limits for safety. Those limits prevent people from becoming either too rich or too poor (un-American, isn’t it!) But this will seem more familiar: it’s result would be a thriving middle class. Few would become rich and powerful; few would pass poverty through generations. For each family would have a relatively equal access to the means of producing wealth every fifty years.

Perhaps the Bible’s wisdom here is exactly what partisan politics tends to forget: both individual character (which the right sees as the root cause of poverty and wealth) and cultural inequality (seen similarly by the left) have to be addressed for poverty to be defeated. A truly Christian view is neither right nor left (modern distinctions, again) but a third way that combines the best of both. One’s hard work would bring rewards, yet not to the extent of oppression of others. One’s tragedy or laziness would bring loss, yet not a loss to one’s children’s innocent children. Both require both: character and justice. Character, of course, was developed in family and church. Government’s role was to make certain justice reached the least.​

But those are principles for a theocracy. Does the Bible say anything about governments that weren’t Jewish? Yes; it speaks of:

All governments: Apparently, God intends to judge all governments on quality of their care for the poor. Here’s an example from Psalm 9:7:

• "The Lord reigns forever; he has established his throne for judgment. He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."

Those same positive qualities that Solomon sought, justice and righteousness, become the yardsticks by which God will judge governments of “the world.”

Babylon: Daniel lays the same responsibilities on the government of the king of Babylon (certainly no Jahweh-follower!), in Daniel 4:27:

• "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue."

An Arab government: And in the Proverbs, King Lemuel, an Arab monarch, has been taught from childhood :

• "It is not for kings, O Lemuel—not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. …Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:4-9)

All governments (from the N.T.): In the New Testament, notice the similar tone of Romans 13, where Paul writes that all governments are “established by God,” and accountable to him to do good and to punish wrong. Again, the charge to secular government is two-fold. And remember, in Jesus’ eyes, standing-by while the poor suffer is wrong, and he sternly warns the rich that they may be punished for it.​

​

Could God be pleased by voters demanding that their government collect taxes to care for the poor?

God views neglect of the poor as evil, worthy of punishment. Further, he holds governments responsible for making sure that the needs of the poor are defended. The Bible assumes that some will ignore the poor or deprive them of rights that the rich enjoy, and God charges government with the responsibility for correction and prevention of such sin.
Taxation seems like a pretty mild way of enforcing a minimal level of shared responsibility for the human family, where people have failed to take it upon themselves. I say “mild” because God enjoins government to defend and support the poor, even to the extent of Solomon’s “crush the oppressor,” and (in Romans), government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the evildoer.”

Perhaps this is where our culture is most at odds with the Bible: Neglect of the poor is sin. Wealth is evil unless it results in sacrifice for others. Once again, how different from modern practice, where gaining wealth is esteemed for its own sake.​

How is the role of individuals distinguished in the Bible from that of families and churches?

Families and churches are called by God to be on the front lines. But perhaps the Bible’s view could be said like this: In a just society, every part of the culture has a role in reducing poverty. Perhaps the Bible is saying, “All hands on deck!”

In the U.S., thousands of people die prematurely each year because they, for instance, haven't health insurance. If I were the man who’d just seen his beloved wife rendered mute by a stroke because they couldn’t pay for blood-pressure medication, I’d be crying for justice. Why did she have to suffer? She worked hard all her life!

Government is obliged by God to correct and prevent injustice. Those who die needlessly have been coerced. It is immoral for government, church, or family to look the other way. It is a repudiation of the example of Jesus and a major theme of the entire Bible.

Will some abuse government money? Of course! Limiting abuse is challenging and important -- perhaps even even Biblically so. But anger toward abuse must not become an excuse for abandonment of those who suffer. We must demand that our government fulfill its role. That people be required to share their wealth through taxation is doubtless not God’s first choice. But that government would decline to act on behalf of the poor where society's individuals have failed to do so would be a doubly egregious evil.

I am a Christian. I will pray; I will learn; I will give. I am also a writer and a voter. And I hold in my hands the power to urge my government to become a bit more just and a bit less selfish. May I use it, as Solomon might "to defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; [and to] crush the oppressor."
​

Sure as I have shared the forgoing thoughts, it comes to mind that you, perhaps other readers are not Christians. If that is so, well, I haven't much to offer other than that you consult secularly evolved philosophy on the matter of morality and ethics.

And how does a thing you posted justify forcibly extracting money from one to give to another?

If you read it carefully, you'll have noticed that what I posted attests to what the Bible says and implies about whether one individually, and governments on the collective behalf of a citizenry, have an obligation to aid the poor and downtrodden.

Yep..
But where does it say that you forcibly extract that money in order to do it.......? Where does it say it is okay to take money from one guy, give it to a 3rd guy and then the original taker is a saint?

Well, if you are asking that, you didn't read the post carefully enough.

 

[JoeMoma]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

It is one thing for the government to not be oppressive to the poor, it's another thing for the government to take on all the needs of its people.
I'm okay with the government providing a safety net for people that can't take care of themselves. However, the bulk of this responsibilities should fall on churches (or non religious charities), families, and individual people. The government can avoid being oppressive by simply staying out of the way.

Food as well as health care is not a right, it is something to be earned. But what about the children? It's mom's and dad's responsibility to provide for their children. It's government's job to provide rule of law so that people can work to provide for themselves, their families, and if they can provide for those others that cannot provide for themselves.

 

[Fenton Lum]

A question for the Libertarian/Conservatives.

Would you accept a universal healthcare system if it was cheaper/more cost efficient, as it's proven to be in almost every OECD country? In other words, would you accept it if it had ZERO impact on your life/financial expenses/overall economy?

There is no evidence that any government run program in the U.S. has ever been more (financially) efficient than private enterprise.

How about the G.I Bill which provided millions of Americans access to higher education, cheap housing, and healthcare, which also subsequently led to the creation of the largest middle class in the world? Or Eisenhower's programs to help build the international federal highway system? In fact it wasn't until the deregulation/semi privatization of major industry and banking, which occurred under the Reagan's administration, when wealth inequality started increasing and our infrastructure stagnated.

"Universal Healthcare" limits choice, by definition, limits incentives for innovation, and generally stifles growth. So yeah, I would reject it.

This is neoliberal nonsense. Growth and innovation in, which occurred most during the 1950s to 1970s, happened under governments that spent the most on social welfare programs. See above. There is ZERO evidence that a majorily privatized nation would spur "incentives for innovation." That's like saying that people won't invent anything if they don't get paid a lot of money (if you think that, you probably have never met artists, scientists, or entrepreneurs that hundreds of times more passionate about their craft/what they produce t than money, power, and status)

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

 

[2aguy]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

Nope...what has made it expensive is the government....they have created in state monopolies and forced insurance companies to do stupid things.......competition and freedom of child's....that improves everything...it will improve healthcare.......what is it about that that you guys don't understand...as you walk around with cell phones that are better, cheaper and more available than ever before....to the point that the poorest among us have personal phones even Captain Kirk didn't have........and yet you think those dynamics won't happen with healthcare.......

 

[Fenton Lum]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

Nope...what has made it expensive is the government....they have created in state monopolies and forced insurance companies to do stupid things.......competition and freedom of child's....that improves everything...it will improve healthcare.......what is it about that that you guys don't understand...as you walk around with cell phones that are better, cheaper and more available than ever before....to the point that the poorest among us have personal phones even Captain Kirk didn't have........and yet you think those dynamics won't happen with healthcare.......

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, the gubment did it to ya.

 

[JoeMoma]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

Competition is a lie because government made it a lie. So the solution to that is more government?

 

[2aguy]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

I have listed the news articles from around the world...those systems you praise...are all collapsing....they can't be sustained and their patients are getting crappy care....and then they lie and say their life expectancy is better than ours while they compare apples to oranges.....never taking into account our level of car ownership or democrat violence....

 

[2aguy]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

Nope...what has made it expensive is the government....they have created in state monopolies and forced insurance companies to do stupid things.......competition and freedom of child's....that improves everything...it will improve healthcare.......what is it about that that you guys don't understand...as you walk around with cell phones that are better, cheaper and more available than ever before....to the point that the poorest among us have personal phones even Captain Kirk didn't have........and yet you think those dynamics won't happen with healthcare.......

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, the gubment did it to ya.

Yeah....and what happened when Obamacare kicked in...that gave more control over healthcare to the government? People lost their plans and their doctors...premiums went up astronomically and deductibles became u payable...and oh yeah......if you don't get it, they fine you.......and if you have a business and don't have it...they fine you...unless you just don't give your employees health insurance, then they fine you less.....so they actually make it less punishing to drop your healthcare...and pay the lower fine, than to give your employees good health insurance....

And that is what you think is intelligent.....that is government handling healthcare?

Wow....

 

[2aguy]

The G.I.Bill...thanks for bringing it up since it doesn't support your side of the discussion and in fact supports my side.....

When the government wanted to help G.I.s get an education...did they build VA schools to educate them? Like they did with Healthcare for Vets? No.

What did they do.....

They gave vets School Vouchers for education.....the government gave them a school voucher, they took that voucher into the education market place and purchased their education...which meant those schools that were good, had vets go to them, the bad schools, didn't get vets.......

So you are wrong......the government here set up VA hospitals instead of giving Vets vouchers for healthcare, the result? A horrible healthcare system that kills vets.

The government can't run things....they can hand out checks.....the market place for education handled educating the Vets...not the government....

The road system.....they poured concrete.......and what is the state of our road system now?


I would bet you guys are against school vouchers for public school kids.......the very same voucher system that you are bragging about that was used to educate Veterans......

the government than can't run the VA system....can't run a healthcare system for 320 million people.

NO ONE, EVER in the history of mankind, has recommended the government build hospitals that they run, for our health care.

Universal Healthcare is simply MEDICARE....you get to choose your hospital and doctors that are in the marketplace, and the gvt gives you a voucher/via a card, to pay for 80% of it and you pay the other 20%.

Do you realize that many doctors no longer take Medicare patients...because the government does not reimburse for the services at the actual cost of the service....so that isn't the market place....and the medicare system is a mess.......as one healthcare expert said during an interview...people on medicare have healthcare, they just can't see a doctor...because too many doctors refuse medicare patients.....

The only way to fix the system is to get the government out of it.....Vouchers for healthcare would be one way to support people with pre-existing conditions and people who can't afford it...then they can buy their own plans or simply pay for their treatment directly.....that would increase competition and introduce more freedom into the healthcare industry.....improving it at all levels.

That has been the pitch all along, and look where we are; the single most expensive healthcare system on the planet with some of the shittiest outcome metrics amongst advanced post-industrial nations. Sure, let's move everything over to for profit totally unaccountable private corporations. "Competition" is a lie, we've never had that in this healthcare system at all.

Please...explain this to all of us....the government can't manage the VA system competently...a small, dedicated system of healthcare to handle the healthcare needs of a tiny population of Americans........who have patients dying on fake wait lists......

Please..tell us how the government that can't handle this tiny healthcare system can then go on and handle the healthcare of 320 million people.......

Please explain how that actually works...