Christians & health care
Modern day Philistines and other hypocrites, with their restrictive moral codes, would amend that to say, “Life, providing you can pay for the doctors, the treatments and the medicines to maintain your health...”
Those who clamor for the U.S. to become a Christian nation seem to be the same ones who would ignore the core principals of Christianity that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount. Not only are the Beatitudes a guide for living a righteous life, but the Gospel of Matthew clearly advocates turning the other cheek and the application of The Golden Rule. Unquestionably then, we are our brother’s keepers, obliged to care for the needy, feed the hungry, forgive our debtors and do unto others, etcetera.
Now, joining the chorus of un-Christian Christians, here come American medical doctors to add their lamentations that universal health care would “enslave” them, requiring them to - oh, the horror! - give free care to the poor, the needy and the indigent.
Forget the Hippocratic Oath, ignore the Ten Commandments, or that a child under five years old dies every three seconds, a victim of poverty. What’s really important is that doctors, as well as upright Christians, keep their portfolios polished and their material estates healthy and protected by obscene fees, wages and stock market profits, while millions more Americans slide into poverty.
While they’re at it, the righteous folks and the good doctors might want to avoid Matthew’s rendition (19:24) of Jesus’ words: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus must have said it because it’s reported in the Gospels of Mark (10:25) and Luke (18:25), as well.
This letter has not been edited.
I'm reminded of the saying that a society is, or should be, judged on the way it treats its most disadvantaged. I except that Jesus would have no trouble agreeing with that.
Posted by Truth on May 9, 2007 03:00 PMReligion has very little to do with God.
Posted by Mikey on May 9, 2007 03:21 PMTruth, the first time I saw you saying was on a program about how prisoners were treated in the North and South in our civil war.
The next time was in a Rosen column where he quoted it, then blasted socalized medicine.
Medical schools are heavily supported by tax payer money. so are teaching hospitals.
Doctors are socalists in school and in tax supported hospitals, and capitalists the minute they get into private practice.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:29 PM"How can we say that health care — life itself — is not a right but a privilege, awarded to the worthy few who can afford it?"
The worthy few?
"Our own Declaration of Independence guarantees it: 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"
It guarantees your right to life (nobody is entitled to take it from you, obviously with exceptions). It doesn't guarantee that you have a right to live at others' expense; paying for your health care, food, shelter, etc...
"or that a child under five years old dies every three seconds, a victim of poverty. "
Really?!?!?
That's 20 per minute, 1200 per hour, 28,800 per day.
Where did you get that statistic?
Posted by Mike on May 9, 2007 06:32 PMOur nation is better off if we have a healthy populace. As things stand now, a large number of people do not have practical access to the health care they need. The Constitution provides that taxes may be used to provide for the general welfare. Most people, I think, would consider that a person's welfare is not very good if he doesn't have practical access to health care. Certainly, that view has been the prevailing view in the United States for many years. I doubt that most people would say "tough luck" about a child not having access to reasonable health care, although there may be respondents here who would.
http://childinfo.org/areas/childmortality/
"The death of a child is a tragic loss. Yet, every year, almost 10.5 million children die before their fifth birthday. That's 30,000 children a day. Most of these children live in developing countries and die from a disease or a combination of diseases that could be prevented or treated if the means were there. Sometimes the cause is as a simple as the lack of antibiotics for treating pneumonia or oral rehydration salts for diarrhoea. Malnutrition contributes to over half these deaths."
These, of course, are world figures, not United States figures. According to the table at http://www.unicef.org/sowc00/stat2.htm , which are based on 1998 figures, there are twenty-nine nations with better child mortality rates than the United States.
Posted by Truth on May 9, 2007 08:52 PMThank you, Mr. Luce. And thank you Rocky Mountain News for posting this letter - it's about time that Christian voices like this are heard in the media.
Posted by mytwosense on May 9, 2007 08:54 PM"or that a child under five years old dies every three seconds, a victim of poverty. "
"Really?!?!?
That's 20 per minute, 1200 per hour, 28,800 per day.
Where did you get that statistic?"- Mike
"The death of a child is a tragic loss. Yet, every year, almost 10.5 million children die before their fifth birthday. That's 30,000 children a day. Most of these children live in developing countries and die from a disease or a combination of diseases that could be prevented or treated if the means were there. Sometimes the cause is as a simple as the lack of antibiotics for treating pneumonia or oral rehydration salts for diarrhoea. Malnutrition contributes to over half these deaths."
These, of course, are world figures, not United States figures. "- Truth
So complain about the evil United States not paying for the health care of every person (as if there isn't a safety net now that addresses the health needs of the poor in this country), and then use WORLD figures to mislead people about the number of children under five who die each year; most of them in third world countries that have poverty and disease problems that we don't.
Posted by Mike on May 9, 2007 11:03 PMPoor Mike, he's having trouble getting his brain in gear.
Mike asks where the statistics came from. So I tell him and tell him that the statistics are world figures. So what does poor Mike do with his brain in the condition that it is? He says I am misleading him. Mike, if you hurry, you should be able to get into a summer kindergarten class.
Posted by Truth on May 10, 2007 06:57 AM"He says I am misleading him."- Truth
When did I say that? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
That stat was thrown out by Mr. Luce; you simply showed me where he got it. Mr. Luce is the one trying to mislead.
Get YOUR brain in gear, Truth. Maybe that kindergarten class will have a remedial reading course.
Even if we accept the figure that 49 million people are without health insurance is accurate (which it isn't) that still leaves us at only 16% of the population without insurance.
This is hardly an alarming number, let alone a number high enough to warrant trusting the federal government to operate a mandatory health insurance program.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 10:31 AMGeorge Luce likes to quote Jesus Christ who never reduced any of his words to print leaving it up to his fan club to do it; therefore, find one quote from your friendly deicide and read Luke 14 for the spewing of hate allegedly by the transmogrified Christian god from a Jew who double-crossed his dad:
The mouse named "Faith" answers the Easter Bunny who asks: "Why do you avoid the cat named "Reason" ~~~ The mouse answers: "Even the dumbest animal recognizes his natural enemy."
Happy days, fellow posters: Bush thinks he is the decider; however I know I'm your friendly deicide plotting to slay the fictional assassin in Luke 19:27 who says: Bring them hither and kill them in front of me.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo (See ffrf.org) on May 10, 2007 10:55 AMEven if we accept the figure that 49 million people are without health insurance is accurate (which it isn't) that still leaves us at only 16% of the population without insurance.
This is hardly an alarming number, let alone a number high enough to warrant trusting the federal government to operate a mandatory health insurance program.
Perhaps if you were one of those folks in the 16 percentale, you might think differently about it being an alarming number.
At any rate, many people who are insured - and the employers who are helping to insure them are unhappy with our present system, as well. They are tired of paying ever-increasing premiums while having limited healthcare provider choices. They are also tired of Big Insurance dictating what medical prodecures they can receive.
If it was just a matter of having everyone in this country insured, I don't think that poll numbers in this country would consistently show that a large number of Americans are dissatisfied with our present employer-funded insurance system.
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 11:04 AM"They are also tired of Big Insurance dictating what medical prodecures they can receive."
And you think this won't happen under Hillarycare?
Why on earth would you believe the federal government can run universal health insurance (not medical care) efficiently? They've poorly run every bureaucracy they've ever invented dating all the way back to welfare.
And MTS, I've been one of the very few in this country without medical insurance. It was by choice in my younger days when if I saw a Dr once every five years it was a lot. There are millions of people who prefer to handle it this way and they are also in the "49 million" figure the politicians like to throw around these days.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 11:23 AMKW: 'I've been one of the very few in this country without medical insurance. It was by choice in my younger days when if I saw a Dr once every five years it was a lot. There are millions of people who prefer to handle it this way"
Out of one side of his mouth: "I've been one of the very few".
Out of the other: "there are millions of people".
Posted by Truth on May 10, 2007 11:28 AMKW: "I've been one of the very few in this country without medical insurance.'
I guess it's a matter of what you mean by "very few". Forty-five million, or fifteen percent or so of our population would, I think, be considered to be more than "very few" by most people.
Perhaps one of the reasons they don't carry medical insurance is that they like the idea of having to pay two or three times as much for their medical needs:
"Uninsured patients on average are billed 2 1/2 times more than what the insured are billed through their health plans, and more than three times what is billed to patients through Medicare, according to the study appearing today in the journal Health Affairs."
Posted by Truth on May 10, 2007 11:34 AMConsidering you all state that Bush's 30% approval rating is an "extremely low" number, I consider any figure around 10-15% as ultra low.
How about the millions of you who want Hillarycare just ante up. There should be enough $$ to cover the 49 million you speak of.
Whatsa matter? You don't wanna pay unless you can force everyone to pay? Gee, that's so liberal of you.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 11:42 AMWhy on earth would you believe the federal government can run universal health insurance (not medical care) efficiently? They've poorly run every bureaucracy they've ever invented dating all the way back to welfare.
I think you and I will probably just permanently disagree on this point. :)
For example, although Medicaid probably has its woes, it does have significantly lower administrative costs than the HMO industry. Under Medicaid, one can see any healthcare provider that accepts it, and more providers accept Medicaid than any one given HMO, I believe.
I also believe our government has successfully run many other programs, although anti-government people will always disagree with that. I think the access to a public education to every child in this country is one of our most shining examples, and probably one reason why America has always been a leading economic power. Everyone has access to an education for at least 18 years.
And during the Depression, our government stepped in and created public works projects to ramp up the economy again. Our government has also abolished child labor, again, freeing our children to pursue an education instead.
"I think the access to a public education to every child in this country is one of our most shining examples," -- mytwosense
Public education is horrible. Given the choice, most parents will send their kids to private schools. The downfall of the DPS is evidence of that.
"And during the Depression, our government stepped in and created public works projects to ramp up the economy again." -- mytwosense
Total BS. War saved the economy, not "public works". No one takes Keynesian economics seriously anymore.
"Our government has also abolished child labor, again, freeing our children to pursue an education instead. " -- mytwosense
Why can't kids work and get an education at the same time?
Posted by on May 10, 2007 12:56 PMSome good points 12:56.
I was also having a problem with MTS using public education as positive example of a well run bureaucracy. Especially when they decided that even if you're here illegally, you still have a right to public education.
Do you think they'll apply the same logic to universal health insurance? If so you'll see tidal waves of illegals racing to get here rather than the standard flooding we have currently.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 01:12 PM12:56, you make a lot of assertions without any real explanations backing them up.
"The downfall of DPS"? Only if you are swallowing hook, line, and sinker Rocky Mountain News' campaign to destroy our public school system in Denver.
Most parents want to see their kids get a quality education, period. That's why Americans consistently rank education as one of our top spending priorities.
If you're all for a 12 year old working ten hours a day and going to school (and they would have the time to do this...when?), more power to you. For the rest of us, we count ourselves lucky we live in 2007 and not the turn of the last century.
I am not surprised, based on your other assertions, that you are dismissing FDR's New Deal policies. Perhaps if you'd lived back then and those policies had given you a job again so you could put food on your family's table, you'd think differently.
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 01:23 PMKW, may I ask you a question? Did you ever go to public school? If so, can you honestly say you did not receive an education from it?
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 01:25 PM"Most parents want to see their kids get a quality education, period. That's why Americans consistently rank education as one of our top spending priorities." -- mytwosense
What does that have to do with a government run education system. No one is claiming education is not important. But, your statement proves my point. Education is important to parents; that's why they are pulling their kids from public schools when they are given the choice.
"If you're all for a 12 year old working ten hours a day and going to school (and they would have the time to do this...when?), more power to you." -- mytwosense
I wouldn't let my kid work 10 hours a day. Five, maybe. But, if a family needs the money they should be allowed to decide what's right for themselves. Allowing kids to work does not mean throwing them in a sweatshop for marathon work hours. It simply means letting them earn some money while they go to school. Flipping burgers for a few hours a day won't kill them. It's better than letting them watch TV and play XBox for 5 hours a day after school.
"I am not surprised, based on your other assertions, that you are dismissing FDR's New Deal policies." --- mytwosense
This is not simply my opinion. FDR's New Deal did not pull America out of a depression. Most economists agree with statement. Look it up.
"Perhaps if you'd lived back then and those policies had given you a job again so you could put food on your family's table, you'd think differently." -- mytwosense
Nonsense. Study economics. That is called Keynesian economics. No serious economist believes it anymore.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 01:41 PM"KW, may I ask you a question? Did you ever go to public school? If so, can you honestly say you did not receive an education from it? " -- mytwosense
Sorry, KW, but I have to jump in. It's a pointless question.
If KW were to answer that (a)yes, he did go to a public school and (b) yes, he did receive an education; what would that prove? Nothing.
Of course, a child who spends 12 years in a public school will receive an "education". The real question is, would that education be better or worse from a non-government school.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 01:49 PMMTS - I received an education thru public schools. Was it the best? Not by a long shot. I was passed in courses I shouldn't have been and failed where I should had a B or C grade. Teachers had the power to play favorites or make you work harder if they didn't like you (or your older siblings). They only thing the schools really did correctly was allowing discipline of unruly students by the teachers.
In todays classes I think a lot of the ciriculum is slanted in favor of a more socialist fashion and they've pretty much removed discipline so unruly students can take a great deal of learning away from the good students (my brother teaches high school and I hear about this a lot).
Things have definitely changed since I went to public school but it's been more of a lateral change and not for the better.
My parents would have prefered private if they could've afforded it.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 02:27 PMI'm perplexed at this point. What do some of you anti-government people actually like about this country? Seriously. I just don't get it. You rail against everything that in my mind, has helped shape this country to be a land of equal opportunity.
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 03:27 PMNonsense. Study economics. That is called Keynesian economics. No serious economist believes it anymore.
I wouldn't say every policy in the New Deal falls under Keynesian economics, but since you seem to enjoy bandying that term about, I assume you're also opposed to the war in Iraq? Since we're essentially funding it through deficit spending?
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 03:40 PMMTS There are those of us that want a limited government. Not sure how this is termed to be hating our country.
Would like to get a solid frame of mind from which to discuss the differences, so I am respectfully asking for some of the Govt items that shaped this country that you refer to. I am sure there will be areas that we both can agree upon to the greater extent. But with any govt agency, the more power it gets, the more "bloated" it becomes.
From my perspective, I see the push for more govt intervention in our lives (Both Rep and Dem) Good intentions for the most part.
Taking into fact the need for security, education, and other areas, how much is anyone willing to raise the tax base (directly and indirectly) for our Middle Class?
Thanks and enjoy your day
Would like to get a solid frame of mind from which to discuss the differences, so I am respectfully asking for some of the Govt items that shaped this country that you refer to.
Well, for me personally, public education is the main one, but then I guess I'm hijacking the thread's original discussion about healthcare at this point. Sorry people!
But with any govt agency, the more power it gets, the more "bloated" it becomes.
I'm curious, do you not have those same concerns about industries that increasingly monopolize? That's another area in our government I appreciate, checks and balances that keep any entity from becoming too powerful in this country...be it Big Business or even the government, itself, through our votes.
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 04:02 PMFirst of all, you seem to be suggesting that people who dislike big government also dislike the country. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I love this country. I'm proud of our Constitution. What I dislike is when we stray from the Constitution.
You said before that education is important to America's citizens. I agree with that statement. Now what? What's the best way of providing high quality education for the most amount of people?
You look at a problem and see a government solution. Others see solutions that do not require direct government involvement. Both sides love their country; they just differ on how best to govern it.
Now, from my experience talking with many progressives, I have determined the types of solutions people favor comes down to two factors:
1) one's understanding of economics
2) one's emotional/rational ratio
Emotional, economically ignorant people tend to be liberals.
Rational, economically lucid people tend to be conservatives.
Emotional people tend to think that because they really really care, the laws of economics will bend for them.
Well, I find that people who live and die by economics tend to ignore variables, and still try to rigidly apply economic laws while ignoring those variables.
As for libs being ruled by emotions...have you been hanging out at this forum very long? I've seen some pretty nasty reactonary stuff from many of the conservatives on here.
But tell you what, if it makes you happy, you guys can be the emotionless ones, we'll be the ones with the emotions. I'd rather be Captain Kirk than Mr. Spock , anyway. :)
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 04:10 PMI love this country. I'm proud of our Constitution. What I dislike is when we stray from the Constitution.
And I agree that the Constitution is a great framework for our country's laws, when you say you dislike it when we stray from it, are you therefore against any of the amendments to it?
Also, moving ahead a few hundred years later, what else do you like about our country? I'm honestly curious.
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 04:13 PM"I wouldn't say every policy in the New Deal falls under Keynesian economics, but since you seem to enjoy bandying that term about, I assume you're also opposed to the war in Iraq? Since we're essentially funding it through deficit spending?" -- mytwosense
You suggested that the New Deal pulled the country out of depression. You were wrong in that assertion.
Keynesian economics is not summed up by saying "deficit spending". Keynesian economics is the theory that government can pull an economy out of depression by creating "public works" type jobs. In other words, if the private sector won't hire you, the government will. It's very similar to the type of thinking going into universal health care; if the private sector won't insure you, the government will.
But, where does the government get the funds to hire you? From business and taxpayers via high taxes. Taxes penalize business. Business responds by hiring less workers. Less jobs mean more demand for government money. It's painful downward cycle. The unemployment rate during the New Deal was in the double digits.
MTS - These other posts some it up pretty well. I (in no way) have ever hated this country. Certain politicians yes, but not the country.
We have such a boonedoggle of bureaucracies now and way too much waste of tax dollars as it is. I had hoped when the reps took congress in 1994, and again when Bush was elected that we would see a decrease in new programs and spending. That obviously never materialized (quite the opposite in some areas) but smaller government and less taxes will always be my prefered style of American government.
Anytime I hear someone pitching a new program and saying "it'll cost more but it's worth it" I cringe.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 04:21 PMIt's very similar to the type of thinking going into universal health care; if the private sector won't insure you, the government will.
But, where does the government get the funds to hire you? From business and taxpayers via high taxes. Taxes penalize business. Business responds by hiring less workers.
Not to ask this question as a defense against single payer healthcare, but using the analogy you give above, do you not see this happening, in a sense, with an employer-funded healthcare system?
It seems many businesses cite rising healthcare premiums for why they are starting to outsource overseas labor. As the providers of the funding for our healthcare, yes, they're being "taxed" in a figurative sense, and passing it on by hiring fewer employees or passing on more of the premiums costs to employees. I bet wages are affected by this, too.
If you don't see a correlation, never mind the next question, but if you do...what would you propose as a market solution to wean us off employer-funded healthcare? Or do you think we shouldn't be weaned off employer-funded healthcare?
p.s. You got me curious about Keynesian economics now, so I'll try to read up on it in more depth at some point! :)
Posted by mytwosense on May 10, 2007 04:33 PM"Not to ask this question as a defense against single payer healthcare, but using the analogy you give above, do you not see this happening, in a sense, with an employer-funded healthcare system?" -- mytwosense
The key difference is that employers are not locked into paying employee health care. At least, I'm not aware of any law that forces them to do so.
But, you're right that since many people expect their employers to pay for their health care, employers may often decide not to hire Americans.
The problem is not as great with non union shops. If medical expenses get too high, most employers simply pay their workers less to make up the difference.
Unionized shops remove that flexibility. Unions will shut down a business rather than take a cut in pay. So, what happens? The business picks up and moves to another state or out of the country.
I would love to move from an employer based health care system. Not sure how to do it.
As for Keynesian economics, don't spend too much time on it. But, if you're interested in reading up on economics, there's a great book by Thomas Sowell called Basic Economics, a Civilians Guide. I think that's the correct title. It's a good read for a book on economics.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 05:02 PMMytwosense, here is a list of thing that I love about this country but I don’t love government.
First every CITIZEN born here has an opportunity to succeed. Equity of opportunity is different from equity of outcome. Liberal want the government to create equity of out come. The price for the opportunity of success is the risk of failure.
Second you are confusing “education” and “public education” I believe it is in the best interest of all Americans to have the most educated population possible. I want to fund the students, not the schools. This lets parents decide which school fits their child’s needs the best, not some school forced on them because of where they live. Would this destroy “public education” as we know it? I doubt it, it would just force them to reform and compete, one of the very things that makes America great. It in know way destroy “education” though.
Finally what people like my self love about America is the American people. We believe that they are the one in the best position to decide what is best for them selves. You believe that the government is the one that can best decide. Not only is the government the worst one to decide, they are very inefficient. This is why people like I want the government to do only what is necessary. I want the government to build roads, defend this nation and its people, these are thing I can not do as an individual. I don’t want the government to provide me with what I should provide for my self, such as health care, or my retirement income.
MTS Thank you very much for your comments and dialogue.
Govt responsible for education. I too think govt has a large obligation for education. Actually providing it is where I have issues. I think if we polled most of us, we would overwhelmingly agree that if we had the choice, we would not send our own kids to public school. Does this cover all needs for education? Absolutely not. But I think that does say alot for public education.
Do I worry about Big Business being bloated also? Yes I do. There are good and bad points within each discussion.
To stay on thread, in theory and in most practice areas, govt does a good job of managing healthcare businesses. In others, there can and is a great abundance of fraud In others the govt has set up "regulations"(done with good intentions) that are such a great cost to business that may not be funneled to patient care and satisfaction. These costs are directly pushed to the consumer. To have a govt run healthcare system you will have to use private industry to provide services. Mixing the 2 even more than they already are could be overly costly at best and disasterous at worst.
I should however have the freedom of choice where to invest my hard earned $$$$ in healthcare.
Mr. Anonymous Economics Master,
What brought on the Great Depression?
Did you live through the period?
What did your "rational, economically lucid conservatives" do to bring us out of the Great Depression?
Since you are asserting that the New Deal didn't bring us out, what did? Which of the great economists you say agree with that assertion provided the jobs, or, for that matter, did any of the work at the time?
Reminds me of Grad School: Which silly THEORY works best? Never mind the real world. Solve all the problems according to the preferred textbook; and hope.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 10, 2007 07:51 PM
Major corporations join in the fight to provide universal health care.
http://www.betterhealthcaretogether.org/
Their mission statement:
4 Common Sense Reform Principles
1. We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage.
2. We believe individuals have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health.
3. We believe that America must dramatically improve the value it receives for every health care dollar.
4. We believe that businesses, governments, and individuals all should contribute to managing and financing a new American health care system.
If I am reading right, that first mission statement says something very similar to "We believe every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage."
Apparently, they have a different take on the uninsured than the "conservative" posters here. Certainly, they are acting out of self-interest, but their idea of what is good for them and the country is much more Christian than what the "conservative" posters here believe.
There are two good reasons for universal health care. One, it is good for those who are now uninsured. Two, it is good for the country.
Posted by Truth on May 10, 2007 08:12 PMOld Grouch, why the incredulous response to my comments? Very few people believe the New Deal brought the country out of depression. It's almost universally accepted that war rescued our economy.
Here's a quote from Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary in May, 1939:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."" -- Henry Morgenthau
Honestly, I don't understand the condescending tone of your post. This is no "silly theory". It's history.
Posted by John II on May 10, 2007 10:06 PMWhat is more relevant to this thread than FDR's New Deal is the fact that John II is a libertarian who does not think that taxes can constitutionally be used to support any of the social programs that have been in place for many years and that are accepted by Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike. This thread is about health care today, not the New Deal more than sixty-five years ago.
Posted by Truth on May 11, 2007 07:39 AMRead the history of the Supreme Court during the New Deal period. The Supreme Court ruled several of the New Deal programs unconstitutional until Mr. Roosevelt threatened to "pack the courts" with a new judge for every existing judge over 70 years old.
Here's an old New York Times article from 1935 after the Supreme Court shot down Roosevelt's "National Recovery Administration."
"“Tell the President that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything. It’s come to an end. As for your young men…tell them to go home, back to the states. That is where they must do their work.” –Justice Louis Brandeis"Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 08:05 AM
John II,
I knew you were the anonymous "economist". I wasn't aware, however, that Henry Morgenthau was included in your collection of "great economists" who supported the idea that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression.
But, as usual, use an historical quote to duck answering any of the other questions; as well as to "establish" the idea that the quote actually refutes someone else's evaluation of a theory. The obfuscation and non sequitur being something of your particular forte throughout.
Since quotations from Louis Brandeis don't have anything to do with the other questions in my posting, you again have deflected matters off the point. And since that tactic is also one for which you are well known, I'll simply let "Truth", and others who want to waste their time, follow up.
Arf! Arf! Arf!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 11, 2007 08:33 AMOld Grouch,
I'm still don't understand what you are refuting. You're objecting to a quote from Roosevelt's Treasury Secretary stating that the New Deal was not working?
And you don't like the quote from the Supreme Court about the unconstitutionality of some of the New Deal programs?
As for your questions:
"What brought on the Great Depression?"
That question is way beyond the scope of this discussion and would take up a lot of space. There are numerous theories. I tend to side with Milton Friedman's criticism of interest rate policies.
"Did you live through the period?"
No. Does that disqualify me from discussing the New Deal?
"What did your "rational, economically lucid conservatives" do to bring us out of the Great Depression?"
I never claimed conservatives brought us out of the depression. War brought us out of the Depression.
"Since you are asserting that the New Deal didn't bring us out, what did?"
War. Our national production doubled at the start of the war.
"Which of the great economists you say agree with that assertion provided the jobs, or, for that matter, did any of the work at the time?"
Milton Friedman. He was a supporter of the New Deal when it was first introduced. He has since, up until his recent death, been a critic of the New Deal policies.
I hope I didn't obfuscate the issue. Was I clear enough for you. Shall I translate it into Latin to give it a bit more gravitas?
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 09:34 AMIt's my fault for getting the thread off track by mentioning the New Deal.
The original thread talked about the relationship between Christianity and, I assume, the lack of compassion about the issue of healthcare on the part of many Christians.
I congratulated the poster's views.
Perhaps Christians with differing views might want to share their opinions on the letter from what they believe is a Christian perspective.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 09:37 AMYo mytwosense: You know how to hurt an old deicide in asking for perspective from those who delve in supstitious nonsense and don't ask from those who don't.
All I can say from a bapitzed Catholic's point of view is that all you infidels, heathens and apostates (since you are not Catholic) are all going to hell. The pope and his pedophile priests told me so and who is to say the pope was not one of those priests. Go on line and you'll find popes and their history. If you think the Republicans have a monoply on cultural coruption, try Faith the mouse in fear of the cat called Reason. Me, your friendly deicide
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 10:29 AMRG, I was babtized Anglian Catholic, do I get to go to a lesser Heaven? But still Heaven?
Hey John II.
The Brandeis quote: Where were our young men that he told to go back to the States?
And Henrys quote" What unkept promises "did he refer to?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 11, 2007 10:43 AMYo mytwosense: You know how to hurt an old deicide in asking for perspective from those who delve in supstitious nonsense and don't ask from those who don't.
Well, with all due respect, Mr. Grimes, I feel this letter's subsequent discussion would benefit from Christian viewpoints on the letter, as the letter-writer specifically challenged Christians.
Of course, I realize most threads tend to get off topic, as I certainly contributed to doing on this one.
But in an effort to get the letter back on track, may I point out at this juncture that there are plenty of other threads where one's view on Christianity as "superstitious nonsense" can be expressed, as you yourself have certainly made generous use of.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 10:47 AMYo Sharon: No full-time heaven for you; your lesser heaven will consist of a rendezvous with me. You will be my antidote if I can find a powerful aphrodisiac. Stretch a bit for rhymns for this deicide Grimes. I love that Sharon from whom I appropriated my not a Risen Christ but a Risen Ape.
Posted by Richard Grimes(Risen Ape)r22037yahoo(ffrf.org) on May 11, 2007 11:37 AMI'm not sure why any Christian would respond to this letter. I wrote a long defense and erased it after realizing Christians do not need to respond to this drivel:
"Now, joining the chorus of un-Christian Christians, here come American medical doctors to add their lamentations that universal health care would “enslave” them, requiring them to - oh, the horror! - give free care to the poor, the needy and the indigent."
What a slap in the face to all the Christian volunteers who donate their time and money to help the poor -- for free.
The writer of this letter should look within himself instead of lambasting others. Maybe he's not doing all he can to help the poor.
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 12:16 PMJohn II, are you doing all you can to help the poor, or just all you want?
Truth be told, for most of us it's the latter. Do you have the honesty to admit it of yourself?
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 12:42 PMSharon B.,
"John II, are you doing all you can to help the poor, or just all you want?Truth be told, for most of us it's the latter. Do you have the honesty to admit it of yourself? "
You could have asked me that question without questioning my honesty. What was the point of doing that?
No, I'm not doing all I can. But, I'm doing something. And, I also don't blame anyone else for my shortcomings. If the amount of people who constantly complain about health care for the poor actually did more on their own to help the poor instead of lecture others, the poor would be a lot better off.
But, don't write letters lambasting Christians when there's so many Christian charities out there actually doing something to help the poor.
If the amount of people who constantly complain about health care for the poor actually did more on their own to help the poor instead of lecture others, the poor would be a lot better off.
I seem to remember you lecturing once or twice that all in favor of single payer healthcare start up their own non-profit organization to pay for the uninsured's healthcare. (You didn't say anything about joining this endeavor yourself, but whatever, that's beside the point.)
It's a flip suggestion, delivered with your usual withering scorn.
By the way, I question your honesty because I think you're a raging hypocrite and hide your innate meanness under a cloak of, in your case, false Christianity. Much like Ann Coulter.
You can say I'm judging you, and others like Michael may say I have no place in questioning your Christianity, but I firmly believe that wolves in sheep's clothing should be called out.
Here's some hypocritical Christians at work in the Denver area:
Habitat For Humanity: www.habitat.org/cd/frame/frameset.aspx?url=www.habitatmetrodenver.org
Catholic Charities of Denver:
www.catholiccharitiesdenver.org/home.aspx
Denver Rescue Mission:
www.denverrescuemission.org/
Providence Network:
www.providencenetwork.org/Index.htm
You are way too sensitive and melodramatic mytwosense.
What have I said on this thread that got you so mad?
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 01:07 PMUnlike YOU, John II, many of those Christian charities don't believe the buck just stops there. Unlike YOU, many of these Christian charities probably believe in more compassionate treatment of illegal immigrants and universal healthcare.
Remember, you're the man who sneered at the "Mr. Martinez's" of this world.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 01:09 PMWhat have I said on this thread that got you so mad?
It isn't you, it is what you represent. A complete, utter disregard for the Christian tenets of mercy and especially, humility. Unfortunately, your ilk has been prominently displayed in the media over the last several years, and I fear the damage to the faith has been devastating.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 01:18 PMMost Christians are supposed to tithe to their church. It is usually 10% of their income.Alot of Christians will give money to the church trying to buy their way into heaven,than buy health insurance.What they get for their money is the head of the church living high on the hog while preaching tithing is your duty and if you tithe you will recieve more riches in return.
The Catholic Church has more money than any one organized religion in the world. Instead of asking for money why not set up a low cost medical plan for low income parishoners?Same with the other religions.They don't have to pay taxes so shouldn't they start a health plan for their people that go to their church?
Since religion and health care wound up somehow being intertwined in the original letter.It's time for the churches to step up and stop buying mansions and fancy cars for their church leaders and start pooling your money for health care.
We'll call it the pay and pray health care fund.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on May 11, 2007 01:23 PMWhat are you talking about?
"Remember, you're the man who sneered at the "Mr. Martinez's" of this world."
You're mad because I inferred that illegal Mexican immigrants would take advantage of our "free" health care system? Are you denying that they wouldn't?
You are a clueless, over-emotional, delusional, sciolist, mytwosense.
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 01:25 PMYou're mad because I inferred that illegal Mexican immigrants would take advantage of our "free" health care system?
Do you deny that how you inferred this was Un-Christian of you? Do you deny that your taking an unrelated to illegal immigration analogy I was giving and jumping on it to make a disparaging joke about Mexicans was Un-Christian of you? Do you deny that your constant objections to having your tax money spent on healthcare for those who don't have it is Un-Christian of you? Do you deny that your comments that liberals should start their own non profit healthcare organization while not offering to join yourself is Un-Christian of you? Do you deny that your comments that it "warmed your heart" to read of a conservative town giving to charity more than a liberal town is Un-Christian of you?
These are rhetorical questions as I fully expect your answer is no to all of them, and I fully expect this because I don't believe you are a Christian.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 01:40 PMI deny all except the following:
"Do you deny that your comments that it "warmed your heart" to read of a conservative town giving to charity more than a liberal town is Un-Christian of you?"
I never said it warmed my heart because a conservative town gave more than a liberal town. It warmed my heart reading about that conservative town and how nice it was.
"These are rhetorical questions as I fully expect your answer is no to all of them, and I fully expect this because I don't believe you are a Christian."
You seem to confuse Christianity with Socialism. Are you suggesting that any Christian who opposes a government run universal health care system in not a true Christian?
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 01:49 PMmytwosense,
When you said this to Mr. Grimes:
"Well, with all due respect, Mr. Grimes, I feel this letter's subsequent discussion would benefit from Christian viewpoints on the letter, as the letter-writer specifically challenged Christians."
I guess you really just wanted to lecture some Christians. I gave you my Christian perspective and you tell me you're tired of my "ilk" and that I'm no true Christian. And all I did was list Christian charities in Denver.
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 02:03 PMI gave you my Christian perspective and you tell me you're tired of my "ilk" and that I'm no true Christian.
Please point out where you gave your "Christian" perspective. I must have missed it. I did, however, spot where you said you didn't see why any Christian should bother to respond to the letter writer's "drivel."
And I note that before you chimed in with that, you posted anonymous economics lessons.
Was that your "Christian" message?
As for confusing Christianity with any kind of politics, be it socialism or capitalism, I am not the one who makes a point of qualifying my Christianity by putting the word "conservative" before "Christian."
And you know exactly why I am questioning your claims of being a Christian. I laid it all out in easy to read sentences, and not one of them said because you don't believe in universal healthcare.
Posted by mytwosense on May 11, 2007 05:29 PMMytwosense, as the immortal John Lee Hooker used to sing, you the unfriendly woman....
Posted by John II on May 11, 2007 08:52 PM