Sep 22, 2011 -- 12:55PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

 

I really feel I've tried to  answer this query by positing that in a modern society, things are either  government responsibilities or they are left to the market which the state  facilitates.

  

Some things are the  governments job. I believe public health is one of those things. If we don't  want the government to do anything with respect to this, then it is handled by  'the market'. It is also a fairly undeniable truth that functioning, modern  markets require a state (i.e. a government). If anyone wants to posit that the  only thing a government should do is to facilitate the enforceability of  contract in a market, then I would like them to point to one real life example  that shows this produces good results with respect to healthcare policy. It is  my opinion that it is a fantasy. Here in the real world, there are examples of  functioning healthcare systems that facilitate a social good; access to  affordable, quality healthcare.

  

If one thinks that  abolishing government will lead to better general health for a given population,  I would again posit that this doesn't play out well in real life. However, if  one's aesthetic is some 'state of nature' as opposed to modern society  well...

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

I know he was specifically referring to religion and it's sponsorship by the state at such time, but I think that sentence is appropriate for a wide variety of topics.  I maintain that this, and many other realms are not legitimate powers of government.  I am not arguing that there is not a problem with health care.  There is simply not a system that government has not gotten involved in that has not developed more problems, eventually than it had when it started.  By expecting government to solve all of our problems, we in effect make ourselves more isolated and more dependent on the government to solve problems for us in the future. 

This can be solved without turning over control of it to the government. 

all

Sep 22, 2011 -- 2:30PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

  

I think some people have a  pathological hatred of government and I hope you are not one of them.

Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:26PM, Esdraelon wrote:

Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:14PM, koolpoi wrote:

Sep 21, 2011 -- 5:44PM, davelaw40 wrote:

Sep 21, 2011 -- 9:31AM, koolpoi wrote:

Sep 20, 2011 -- 11:52PM, davelaw40 wrote:

Sep 20, 2011 -- 10:37PM, matica wrote:

Should non productive american citizens be forced to die so we do not have to take care of them?

Was there a health care insurance system when Jesus healed?

Should profits and shareholder dividends have precident over life?

Did Jesus teach financial profits were more important than healing?

scripture says everyone should care for their own relatives

anyone that refuses to care for their own is worse than an infidel

But what if the relatives are unable to help or if there are no relatives?Are we our brothers' and sisters' keepers in those cases?I recently saw a video clip from a Republican presidential candidate debate in which many in the audience seemed to favor letting a sick individual die because he didn't have health insurance.I understand that this is the US system but I was surprised at the unabashed pride the audience members seemed to take in allowing someone to die because he lacked money or insurance,especially since the US is the most Christian country in the developed world.I cannot imagine Jesus approving of that audience's attitude.How do you think He would have reacted had He been there?

then the local community steps in

Jesus would have lambasted them as individuals but not expected a government to step in

So how could so many church-going people be so wrong while a more secular European crowd would have been more likely to react as Jesus would have expected?

What do you actually know of what Jesus would have expected? Let me ask you something....given the arguments all over this forum right now, why did Jesus not call upon Caesar or Pontius Pilate to start a social program for the 'needy' of the time since Rome was basically the 'government'?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus never once stated, nor insinuated, that the government was to put people up in free housing and food banks. He always focused on the individual.

Um Jesus was not a stupid retard, he knew full well what taxes went for when they went to Ceasar, there for Pay unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. It's been well documented Rome had a socialist society, and the Isrealites lived with in that society. Meaning they did not have insurance companies, if you needed to see a doctor you were not asked by a Roman physician if you could afford it or not.

The government doesn't put anyone up in free housing, they offer subsidized housing, the tennants are still responsible for paying rent. Food banks aren't set up to provide alllll the foold for a family, they are set up...not by the governmment but by private organizations who recieve donations of food that help a family to eat food, not provide for allllll their food, but to help feed children mostly.

So going back to the church...Jesus would lamblast an individual who could afford to help the poor, but refused to do so and worse yet claimed Jesus would refuse to help the poor as well. He would have definatley lamblasted any individual who desired to rob from the poor, much like we witness by the fake christians on these discussions.

Sep 23, 2011 -- 12:25AM, matica wrote:

And don't christians claim that one day, gods government is going to take care of everyone regardless.....why don't you speak out against the government god is going to bring, or is gods government going to only favor those who have and will wipe out those who have not?

No, many, if not most Christians, do not buy into the left behind theology.