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.

[GentleDove]

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.

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?

Because the voters are socialists. They believe very strongly that they can get more from socialist programs than what they pay in. They fear going without anything, and they believe the state and its socialist redistribution schemes will save them from ill health or going without good medical care. They believe that central planning will save them from bad decisions and cruel, greedy, capitalists.

Thats what being our brothers keeper means, not participating in Obamas attempt at socialist-fascism.

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.

By socialism, I meant an economic ideology advocating state or public ownership or administration of the means of production, such as the medical system, and distribution of goods, such as health care, and a society characterized by free and equal access to resources, such as medical care, for all individuals.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Socialists have advocated various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).

Obama has the above socialist ideology.

I clarified the definition of fascism in this post. I contend that Obama also has a fascist ideology.

People who fought against real fascists will embrace fascism in their own backyard, if it is packaged in such a way that it will seem to fit their perceived needs. Fascism is an ideology, and as such, can exist in the minds of people, regardless of time and place. We are not superior to all the other people of the past who supported fascism in its early stages; it is a wicked ideology against which people, especially Christians, should be on their guard.



Obama's On-the-Wall Endorsement

Obama Among the Dictators

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 14:

Why do you think you have a right for the state to force other people to pay for your medical care? Can you offer verifiable evidence of this so-called right?

Because I'm a veteran of the US Army. It's in the contract.

On the issue of my considering it a right for all to have universal healthcare, I base it solely on compassion for those less fortunate.

Yes, churches are succumbing to the socialist mindset, and Christians are ignoring God's commands.

So I contend where charity fails, and the free market fails, government should step up to ensure all its citizens can receive decent medical care. I don't doubt we can all quible about what constitutes "decent", but I would contend there needs to be some mechanism in place where folks who really need medical care can receive it, before it becomes a medical emergency.

I do agree it would be great if this would occur - as long as folks were not unduly burdened with proselytizing.

Of course not. No one should ever be unduly burdened with anything, except taxes and long waits and ill health.

Until such time the issue can be solved without government involvement, I'd say having the government involved becomes necessary.

Does GentleDove consider folks with ill health as not deserving of medical care?

Hold on. The swastika hyperbole is yours. Fascism does not equal Nazis.

True. I would contend neither does allowing folks to go to a doctor when they need care.

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

LOL The "death panel" myth lives.

Once again, I did not say anything about a death panel. That is your hyperbole.

I'll leave that one for the observer to decide. I personally see an implication in "'euthanizing' the elderly" of the death panel myth.

You dont have to believe in God to know whether Obama is violating the 8th Commandment or not; all you have to be able to do is read. I brought up breaking commandments because, according to the OP, Obama accused Christians of violating the 9th commandment, himself bearing false witness against Christians.

Fair 'nuff. I still don't see how we can consider anyone in violation of "God's commandments" when we can't show God gives a hoot to begin with.

Only God can verify Himself to you. Perhaps He will before you die.

Sure 'nuff. I've yet to see a theist that can.

I certainly pray so.

I get a sense you sincerely mean that, and I thank you. If He's up there I hope He blesses you and yours.

[McCulloch]

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.

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?

Because the voters are socialists.

You paint with a wide ideological brush. Social democracy is notably different from Socialism. Key features in Social democracy are

1. Representative democracy
2. Civil liberties
3. Labor rights
4. Mixed economy
5. Welfare state
6. Fair trade
7. Environmental protection
8. Secularism

While some members of the American Democratic Party could arguably be considered social democrats; however, the party overall is not usually considered to be advocates of social democracy like the Canadian New Democratic Party. It is more correctly described as Social Liberalism. If Obama is a a socialist then he is in good company:

• Tony Blair (UK)
• Willy Brandt (Germany)
• Ed Broadbent, Tommy Douglas (Canada)
• Stephen Lewis (Canada, UN)
• Nelson Mandela (South Africa)
• Golda Meir (Israel)
• Ralph Nader (US)
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson (USA)

[micatala]

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.

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?

Because the voters are socialists. They believe very strongly that they can get more from socialist programs than what they pay in. They fear going without anything, and they believe the state and its socialist redistribution schemes will save them from ill health or going without good medical care. They believe that central planning will save them from bad decisions and cruel, greedy, capitalists.

I have to ask how you know what voters in these countries are thinking? Is this based on actual evidence or is this speculation?

The next question would be what is wrong with being socialist?

Thats what being our brothers keeper means, not participating in Obamas attempt at socialist-fascism.

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.

By socialism, I meant an economic ideology advocating state or public ownership or administration of the means of production, such as the medical system, and distribution of goods, such as health care, and a society characterized by free and equal access to resources, such as medical care, for all individuals.

Well, I don't see that Obama is advocating state or public ownership of means of production, even including the medical system, any more than his predecessors, save for actions taken in a couple of extreme cases like the Detroit bail out. Much of what Obama has done has been in response to the incredibly bad situation he inherited from Bush. Now, I don't blame Bush for everything bad that happened the last 8 years, as Presidents typically get more blame and more credit than they deserve. But clearly some of what Obama has done was not what he had been planning to do even as late as two months before he was elected.

We already have government involvement in health care for the elderly. We already have, if you want to use the term, socialized retirement through social security. We already have free and equal access to education, transportation infrastructure, police protection, many welfare programs including unemployment, etc.

The government is involved with but does not provide for free utilities in some areas of the country, water and garbage surface in most places in the U.S.,

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Socialists have advocated various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).

Taking this as an accurate description of socialism, I have to ask again what is wrong with this? Clearly, if we consider health care for example, the current system does not work very well. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. The next largest share for a developed country is 11% and the average for the 30 OECD countries is about 9%. OUr results in life expectancy, child mortality, infant mortality, and other measures are far from the best of these 30 countries.

Please explain why we should avoid "socialized medicine" when by many of the objective measures we have, we are doing worse and spending more than countries that do have "socialized medicine."

Also, how is having a government option while still maintaining private insurance as the predominant delivery system of health insurance socialism? Is having a US Postal Service competing with FedEx socialism?

Obama has the above socialist ideology.

I don't think his policies or the facts support this statement.

I clarified the definition of fascism in this post. I contend that Obama also has a fascist ideology.

Again, I don't think the facts support this statement in the least. The fact that some people get carried away with their admiration of Obama is not fascism.

Obama's On-the-Wall Endorsement

Well, Obama shook hands with Chavez. Nixon shook hands with Chairman Mao who was orders of magnitudes more evil than Chavez. Chavez is not even a dictator, he is simply an annoying and bombastic demagogue. Bush shook hands with King Abdullah, the non-elected ruler of a country with no rights for women and capitial punishment for some religious activities. Don Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein and Reagan did a lot more than a handshake, giving him weapons with which to commit genocide. Bush enthusiastically shook hands and hugged Vladimir Putin several times, and famously said he "looked into his soul."

Who is closer to being a fascist, Putin or Chavez?


One of your links discussed the "Obama Poster". Now, I would certainly admit the Obama campaign used what might be called propaganda techniques to great effect. However, he was far from the first. The Reagan campaign took the "staged campaign event" to new levels in his day, and politicians have been mimicking and innovating on his tactics ever since. If the Obama campaign had a new flavor, much of it was derived from the historic nature of his candidacy, and frankly, he downplayed that aspect compared to what he might have done.

To suggest Obama is fascist because he shook hands with a leftist Venezeulan politician and has a lot of adoring fans seems to me to be distorting terms beyond any conceivable legitimate meaning. If Obama is a fascist, so were most of the U.S. Presidents of the past century.

[East of Eden]

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 healh-care systems has 'major or fundamental flaws'.
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/eve ... 20oped.pdf

Note "63 percent of
Americans who had elective surgery waited less than a
month, compared to only 37 percent of Canadians; 27
percent of Canadians in the same situation waited more
than four months, compared to only 5 percent of
Americans."

Most Americans are pretty satisfied with their health care. We do need changes, such as tort reform. Obama will not discuss this since the Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers. Think John Edwards.

The 40,000,000+ uninsured figure is somewhat bogus as many of those could afford it, but choose not to buy coverage. About 10,000,000 of that figure are illegal aliens, who should be deported, not insured at taxpayer expense.

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

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.

[micatala]

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 healh-care systems has 'major or fundamental flaws'.
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/eve ... 20oped.pdf

Note "63 percent of
Americans who had elective surgery waited less than a
month, compared to only 37 percent of Canadians; 27
percent of Canadians in the same situation waited more
than four months, compared to only 5 percent of
Americans."

Note the word elective .

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

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.

Most Americans are pretty satisfied with their health care. We do need changes, such as tort reform. Obama will not discuss this since the Democrats are in the pocket of the trial lawyers. Think John Edwards.

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 40,000,000+ uninsured figure is somewhat bogus as many of those could afford it, but choose not to buy coverage. About 10,000,000 of that figure are illegal aliens, who should be deported, not insured at taxpayer expense.

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.

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.

Well, Bush did a lot worse at growing the economy than Clinton. Does that make Bush more socialistic than Clinton? I was not aware that socialism was defined by percentage growth in the GDP.

[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.