Obama Violating Separation of Church and State?

[East of Eden]

Obama recently attempted to get Pastors to use their pulpit to convince their congregations to go along with the his Health Care Program. He accused the opposition of violating the 9th commandment. He spoke of our obligation to be our brother's keeper.

Shouldn't those of you who oppose Christians trying to get their Biblical views enacted into law in regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc. be equally concerned about this?

It would be nice if Obama would be his own brother's keeper, who last time I checked was still living on $5 a month in Kenya. Perhaps while on vacation at that $20,000,000+ Martha's Vinyard retreat he'll have time to reflect on that.

[McCulloch]

Why is it that in countries with government mandated universal health care, such as Canada and the UK, any politician who advocates its removal is unelectable?

Here is an article from 2002 showing 77% of Canadians think their health-care systems has 'major or fundamental flaws'.

Yes, our health-care system has flaws. We continually engage in debate about how to address those flaws. It is called democracy. One side advocates creating a two-tiered approach, adding private health care alongside public universal health care. No one is seriously advocating the abandonment of universal health care.

Most Americans are pretty satisfied with their health care.

Probably because most Americans are isolationist and do not understand that they are overpaying for what they get and that their product is not first-rate.

We do need changes, such as tort reform.

More than one Canadian doctor, lured south of the 49th by larger salaries paid by the American health care system have returned when faced with the cost of malpractice insurance. I don't think that tort reform should be considered separate and apart from the other medical issues. I hope that Obama is smart enough not to mix the two separate issues.

Obama will not discuss this since the Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers. Think John Edwards.

We agree. There are too many lawyers in politics. It is kind of like letting the coyotes guard the chicken coop.

The 40,000,000+ uninsured figure is somewhat bogus as many of those could afford it, but choose not to buy coverage.

I find that difficult to believe. There are a few, like Bill Gates, where that may be possible, but when you risk losing your home and your retirement savings for an extended hospital stay, only a fool would choose not to have coverage if they could at all afford it.

About 10,000,000 of that figure are illegal aliens, who should be deported, not insured at taxpayer expense.

There are major flaws in the laws and practices of a country which has ten million illegal aliens. However, I don't think that those people would have been included in the figure, simply because, as non-citizens non-residents, they would not be entitled to the proposed universal health care.

I believe the Eastern European nations dismantled their socialized health-care systems after the end of the cold war.

The long-term goal of Polish health policy was a complete conversion of state budget-supported socialized medicine to a privately administered health system supported by a universal obligatory health insurance fee. Under such a system, fees would be shared equally by workers and enterprises. Yes, they dismantled their socialized health-care system and moved towards, not the American, but the Canadian model. Rights to healthcare are also recognized in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Obama is neither a socialist nor a fascist. It is an insult to those who fought against the real fascists to imply that he is.

He is definately a socialist. The man has no clue how to grow the economy.

You are wrong in your first claim. A true socialist would not be electable in the USA. He is no more socialist than FDR. Your second claim does not follow from the first. Time will tell whether he has the ability to manage the economy.

[East of Eden]

Note the word elective .

How about we talk about something more important, like essential life-saving surgeries.

Those surgeries are included in 'elective', which includes coronary bypass surgery. Tulane University cardiac surgeon Robert Carroll found that the percentage of the respondents in need of elective coronary bypass surgery who had been waiting for more than three months was 0% in U.S., 18.2% in Sweden, 46.7% in Canada, and 88.9% in the United Kingdom. Here's an article on wait times in Canada for all surgeries:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/ ... raser.html

This might explain the Canadian 25% higher cancer death rate.

Your example gets at the fear many have of rationing, which would mean not being able to get certain kinds of medical care, or having to wait for it since only so many of a given procedure per year or whatever are going to be done.

The problem with this argument is we ALREADY HAVE rationing. Right now it is done by insurance companies, or it is done by people to themselves, sometimes involuntarily because they simply do not have the means.

Now, I am often a critic of anecdotal evidence, arguing by isolated examples, but I will give you an example of a personal nature. A family member of mine once nearly died from an attempted suicide. She had lost her regular job, and thus lost her health insurance. As a result, she could not afford to keep up with her anti-depressant medication. The system we have essentially rationed her health care because our system depends on private insurers and providing that insurance through employment.

So why would we want more rationing?

I am all for considering tort reform as part of the process. I am not willing to hold reform hostage to ideological opposition to a government option.

The ideological aspect is on the part of those pushing this. It isn't about health-care, its about government control. The Republicans are promoting other solutions that Obama won't even listen to.

I think you probably have a point here. Still, there are millions of people who simply cannot afford insurance. I will not that we require people to buy car insurance so that they do not become a burden to the rest of us when they get in an accident. Those who are uninsured now, whether by choice or not, when they require serious expensive care either end up going bankrupt, rely on the charity of the health care system, or get care on the public dollar, or all of the above.

Or, they just don't get care and die.

Now, I am all for discussing the best way to solve the problem and get us better health care for less money. Tort reform is all well and good, but I don't think it will even approach solving the magnitude of the problems we have.

So why not target the US citizens who can't afford health-care, just like any welfare situation? Not that we can afford it.

Well, Bush did a lot worse at growing the economy than Clinton.

Granted this article is before the (Democratically caused) housing crisis his, but the Bush economy did very well. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comm ... 260852.asp

Tax receipts went up tremendously due to the economy being stimulated by the Bush tax cuts. Clinton also had the benefit of a GOP congress.

Does that make Bush more socialistic than Clinton?

I said Obama was socialistic, not Bush or Clinton.

I was not aware that socialism was defined by percentage growth in the GDP.

Never said it was.

[East of Eden]

Yes, our health-care system has flaws. We continually engage in debate about how to address those flaws. It is called democracy. One side advocates creating a two-tiered approach, adding private health care alongside public universal health care. No one is seriously advocating the abandonment of universal health care.

That is your business, but to point to the Canadian system as an improvement is laughable. It would just be trading one set of problems for another.

Probably because most Americans are isolationist and do not understand that they are overpaying for what they get and that their product is not first-rate.

So why do so many Canadians come here for medical treatment?

More than one Canadian doctor, lured south of the 49th by larger salaries paid by the American health care system have returned when faced with the cost of malpractice insurance.

Then this is an area that we need to copy your model.

There are major flaws in the laws and practices of a country which has ten million illegal aliens.

You can say that again.

However, I don't think that those people would have been included in the figure, simply because, as non-citizens non-residents, they would not be entitled to the proposed universal health care.

Obama claims they would not be covered, but includes their number in his '47,000,000 uninsured' figure.

The long-term goal of Polish health policy was a complete conversion of state budget-supported socialized medicine to a privately administered health system supported by a universal obligatory health insurance fee. Under such a system, fees would be shared equally by workers and enterprises. Yes, they dismantled their socialized health-care system and moved towards, not the American, but the Canadian model.

Does that go for the rest of Eastern Europe?

Rights to healthcare are also recognized in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Which has zero bearing on the US.

You are wrong in your first claim. A true socialist would not be electable in the USA.

He would be if he wasn't honest about the label, with the exception of US Senator Bernie Sanders, who was elected as a Socialist.

He is no more socialist than FDR.

Another Socialist.

Your second claim does not follow from the first. Time will tell whether he has the ability to manage the economy.

The early returns aren't good.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Obama recently attempted to get Pastors to use their pulpit to convince their congregations to go along with the his Health Care Program. He accused the opposition of violating the 9th commandment. He spoke of our obligation to be our brother's keeper.

Shouldn't those of you who oppose Christians trying to get their Biblical views enacted into law in regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc. be equally concerned about this?

He's doing the exact same thing that countless other politicians do. If a pastor wants to tell their congregation to do something or vote for something, he can. If Obama wants to convince a pastor to support something, he can.

In addition, look at the history of civil government involvement with health care; every time they pass some health care act, the prices for medical care rise, while the service goes down (government-required HMOs, government-required insurance plans, etc.). I doubt people really want medical care facilities to be run like the Post Office or the DMV.

Can you provide examples to support your assertion that whenever government becomes involved in health care, the price of health care goes up while coverage goes down?

Of course, families should pay for their own health and sickness care, through savings, insurance, or cost-sharing plans, and if they cant then the church and/or church-run charities should care for the sick/pay for care. Thats what being our brothers keeper means, not participating in Obamas attempt at socialist-fascism.

Churches don't have the money to provide 50 million people with consistent and quality health-care. The system you describe would be a disaster unless people started contributing massive amounts of their yearly income towards their church.

If refusing to be in the pocket of fascist dictators means giving up tax-exempt status"so be it. Then preach Biblical politics to the people"and get those oppressive tax laws repealed. Let Christians put their money toward actually helping people through private enterprise and voluntary charity for the sake of the gospel, instead of civil government-run money pits that never deliver the goods.

Oh give me a break. Health care reform is going through the legislative process like any other bill. It isn't a mandate from Premier Obama, nor is the idea of universal health care fascist. Fascism is characterized by rampant nationalism and an overwhelmingly powerful central government. Creating a public option for health care that is being forced upon no one is less fascist than a fire department and I hear few calling firemen fascist neo-Nazis.

By idolizing the state, Obama is breaking the 1st commandment.

He is expanding the power of the state, yes, but he is not turning it into something which the people bow down to and pray to. The 1st commandment says thou shalt have no other Gods before me and it is an enormous stretch to say that the government reforming health care falls under the 1st commandment.

And he seems overly interested in aborting the unborn and "euthanizing" the elderly in violation of the 6th commandment.

Please explain to me how he is euthanizing old people (we'll leave abortion for another topic)

With his socialist Health Care solution (and other socialist programs) he is in violation of the 8th commandment.

Taxation does not account to stealing.

[East of Eden]

He's doing the exact same thing that countless other politicians do. If a pastor wants to tell their congregation to do something or vote for something, he can. If Obama wants to convince a pastor to support something, he can.

I agree, but there's a double standard here. When pastors tell their congregation to vote against gay marriage or abortion, they get accused by some here of violating the separation of church and state.

[East of Eden]

Taxation does not account to stealing.

It is when the rates appoach 50%, as some people pay. And when it is done for the purposed of income distribution it is. Even God only asked for 10%.

Slavery is when you do the labor and someone else gets the fruits of that labor.

[McCulloch]

Taxation does not account to stealing.

It is when the rates appoach 50%, as some people pay. And when it is done for the purposed of income distribution it is. Even God only asked for 10%.

When Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar", did he indicate an upper limit?

Please show how any American taxpayer is paying a rate approaching 50% of his income. Do not be confused with marginal tax rates. Show your calculations.


Source

Slavery is when you do the labor and someone else gets the fruits of that labor.

Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). Taxation is not slavery. Even at over 30%.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Please show how any American taxpayer is paying a rate approaching 50% of his income. Do not be confused with marginal tax rates. Show your calculations.

Don't forget state tax rates and property taxes. When you add those in (state taxes are almost 10% in some states for the highest bracket, by the way) the tax rate on the highest-earning Americans gets to the area of 50%.

I agree, but there's a double standard here. When pastors tell their congregation to vote against gay marriage or abortion, they get accused by some here of violating the separation of church and state.

Maybe there is among some, but I'm not one of them. A preacher using their influence to help politicians is an abuse of power from my non-Christian perspective, but it's up the the church to censor their clergymen. If they think it's ok, then who am I to say otherwise?

It is when the rates appoach 50%, as some people pay. And when it is done for the purposed of income distribution it is. Even God only asked for 10%.

It is when the rates appoach 50%, as some people pay. And when it is done for the purposed of income distribution it is. Even God only asked for 10%.

So, during the 40's, when the highest income tax bracket flirted with 90% due to the enormous amount of money needed for the war effort, people were being stolen from? The money was being taken because it was needed for the government to properly do its job ensuring the safety and well-being of Americans. That is part of the social contract, that people sacrifice (in this case through taxes) in order to gain safety and prosperity.

I'm not saying that creating universal health care is as important as defeating Hitler, but these people were being taxed much worse than we are today, and it was not stealing. The money was simply needed for a greater cause, and to ensure that the person being taxed did not end up a citizen of the Third Reich.

[East of Eden]

When Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar", did he indicate an upper limit?

He wasn't asked that question. I assume even you belive in an upper limit, rather than a 100% tax.

Please show how any American taxpayer is paying a rate approaching 50% of his income. Do not be confused with marginal tax rates. Show your calculations.


Source

I know there is a graduated scale, but the top Federal rate is 35% (scheduled to go up in 2011), CA has a 10% state income tax rate, a self-employed can pay 15% in FICA tax, and this is not even counting sales tax, gas tax, etc.

Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages). Taxation is not slavery. Even at over 30%.

It is a mild form of it. The Boston Tea Party was a revolt over a tax of less than 5%.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

It is a mild form of it. The Boston Tea Party was a revolt over a tax of less than 5%.

The Boston Tea Party was us dumping a bunch of surplus tea the East India Company sold to us at a huge discount in Boston Harbor. The fact that the tea we actually threw into the harbor was given to us at a very fair price aside, a 5% duty on tea is not a form of slavery by any stretch of the imagination.

The power to tax is a very powerful thing and I do agree with you that taxes can be incredibly unfair and taxation is often abused or overdone. That being said, being taxed is not a form of slavery unless you are being taxed 100%, in which case you are working and not getting paid.

Nor are taxes unequivocally stealing. Again, a 100% tax would basically be stealing, but there are times (WWII) when taxes as high as 90% are completely necessary for the continued well-being of a country.