September 23, 2010

Obama asks faith-based groups to help him get his message out about the Democrats health-care-reform legislation.

Politico reports:
With health reform’s popularity steadily slipping, top administration officials turned to faith-based groups that supported the law to do their part explaining it. On an hour-long conference call Tuesday, they outlined the Patients’ Bill of Rights and asked faith-based and community groups to get the word out on the new provisions. “I wanted to have this call because we have a big day coming up, the six-month anniversary of health reform’s passage,” President Obama told leaders on the conference call, hosted through Health and Human Services’ Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Obama later added that, “The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law. ...I think all of you can be really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors, to help explain what’s now available to them.” Joshua DuBois, head of the White House’s Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, got even more specific: “Get the word out there, get information out there. Make use of the resources described on this call: the website, door hangers, one pagers and so forth. We’ve got work to do.”
Religion as the handmaiden of government, serving as really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors. Worldly power seeks to inflate itself with whatever credibility religion can cede.

Once you are the really important validator of government, can you be a really important validator of God?

***

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

129 comments:

miller said...

At least we don't believe in that separation of church and state anymore.

knox said...

With health reform’s popularity steadily slipping

WHAT popularity?? No one wanted it to begin with!

shoutingthomas said...

It's called the "Affordable Care Act!"

What a laugh! Who came up with that honker?

Obama only seems to get religious when he wants something.

Minzo said...

I'm confused...from what I gather from your posts you think highly of Sarah Palin and this is pretty much her shtick, but a lot worse.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Obama asks faith-based groups to help him get his message out about the Democrats health-care-reform legislation."

Heh...too bad he didn't think of doing that before he rammed it down the throat of the electorate.

AJ Lynch said...

Pretty ironic when irreligious people like Prez Obama decide to use churches as a tool to advance his socialist agenda. Socialists are generally big supporters of religion right?

wv = bigshuck [I am not making this up]

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm confused...from what I gather from your posts you think highly of Sarah Palin and this is pretty much her shtick, but a lot worse."

I'm confused by your reference to what you've somehow gathered generally. Quote some things I've actually written. You think I'm being inconsistent, but only with some vague mush in your head. Quote something I wrote!

Clyde said...

No comment, just a wv: unwell.

Really!

zmous said...

As a Christian conservative, I get upset when the separation of church and state issues keep coming up when I want to involved with some issue here and there, yet when Democratic Liberals like Obama, it is completely okay to muddle the waters. What the heck?

q12345q6789 said...

again... it get's tiring to have to keep saying this, but I do believe it needs to be noted; If Bush had done this... It would be proof of the impending Christianist Theocracy and the "unholiest" alliance between government and religiosity EVAR!
But, progs will give the O'Bumm-a a break because...

Pastafarian said...

Minzo, you are confused. Here's something that Althouse actually wrote about Palin, paraphrasing:

'Oh noes, Palin is teh stooooopid!'

Now, I'm pretty sure it was actually "no", and "teh" wasn't in there, and "stupid" was spelled correctly. But I think that this version more accurately reflects the spirit of our hostess's rather...stupid pronouncement.

Palin's stupid, because she couldn't recite "The Bush Doctrine" (whatever the fuck that means, to whoever the fuck asked about it). Meanwhile, Obama and the other turdhammers in this administration are scary smart, despite the fact that "The Obama Doctrine" apparently means: Spend like hell; fuck business over, particularly small business; piss off allies, and placate our foes.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Any group that supported that law is faith-based by definition.

The Drill SGT said...

Obama sees churches like he sees Unions. Just a GOTV tool to support his policies.

kcom said...

"Once you are the really important validator of government, can you be a really important validator of God?"

I'm guessing that people he's talking to probably gave up the God part a long time ago. So he's not asking them to betray anything particularly important.

PatCA said...

As an Alinksyite, he sees churches only as another group with its own interests that he can draw in as an ally to his.

I wonder if he will now stop skipping the "endowed by their Creator" phrase when speaking of the Dec of Independence?

Quayle said...

Faith is the operative word with the Democrats health-care reform.

It's benefits certainly can't be seen with the rational eye.

Quayle said...

Ah, Paul Z beat me to it.
Darn!

Menley said...

Obama first went to churches in Chicago as a community organizer, and then someone suggested that he would be more effective if he joined a church...

former law student said...

Once you are the really important validator of government, can you be a really important validator of God?

Quite right. Any faith-based group that praised the Hyde Amendment became a spent force at that moment.

former law student said...

No one wanted it to begin with!

True. Save for a few cranks, and MDs who realized they'd have to replace their Mercedes on a four-year cycle instead of three years, we all wanted single-payer.

Well, you go to war with the health insurance system you have, not the health care system you'd like to have.

traditionalguy said...

Religion traditionally supported the King, and the King traditionally needed that support. The American Experiment has been to set religion free from that unholy alliance. This American tradition has protected the churches. But the Kenyan Way is that "one strong man rules". So Barack will see such an unholy alliance as his due. This President does not understand American traditions, no matter where he was born.

former law student said...

he rammed it down the throat of the electorate.

Huh?

The health care reform act originated in the House and was passed by both houses. Aside from some jawboning, all Obama did was sign it.

SteveR said...

Using the government to do your job as a Christian is not impressive, either as individuals or as groups. Those who see this as a legitimate way to feel religious or "faithful", are neither.

shoutingthomas said...

True. Save for a few cranks, and MDs who realized they'd have to replace their Mercedes on a four-year cycle instead of three years, we all wanted single-payer.

A supremely ugly statement on every level.

Doctors should make a good living. They go to school for a long time and endure a long residency.

Nobody wanted single-payer.

There was no health-care emergency. Obama invented that.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
The health care reform act originated in the House and was passed by both houses. Aside from some jawboning, all Obama did was sign it.

The Nurnberg Laws originated in the Reichstag and was passed by both the Reichstag and Reichsrat, all Reichkranz Hitler did was to sign it….Jesu Christi FLS, is that the BEST you can do? “…,all Obama did was sign it.”? Well there you go, all he did was enact it into law…after having pushed for it and having made it a centre piece of his Administration. So now, even Obama supporters are running from it? What you want to start calling it “Pelosi Care” now?

tooclass said...

You've either got faith or you've got unbelief, and there ain't no neutral ground.

Can't you just imagine Jesus saying "It's not YOUR responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare. It's all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY."

former law student said...

Using the government to do your job as a Christian

Are Christians ready to assume the responsibility to care for two-year-old Violet McManus of Novato, CA? Whose medical bills have Christians paid, once they reached their lifetime insurance caps? Which medical bankrupts have been kept from homelessness from Christians?

Do your job, Christians!

From KGO-TV:

Republicans want to take back Congress this fall and immediately repeal these reforms because of their nearly $1 trillion price tag. But you'll hear nothing but praise from the McManus Walters family in Novato. They said the changes mean they can keep their home and keep their little girl healthy.

Two-year-old Violet McManus' life has been a struggle because of an especially violent type of epilepsy.

"It's horrible, she doesn't breathe, she turns blue and we don't know if she's going to come out of it," said Violet's mother Julie Walters.

Adding to that terror is the fear of the astronomical medical bills.

"Our lifetime limit was $5 million - she's two and she has already gone through a quarter of that," said Walters.

We most likely would have had to file bankruptcy. We would of course have lost our home and we would have had to rely probably heavily on help from family," said Violet's father Matt McManus.

edutcher said...

I kept hearing something about rendering unto Caesar as I read that.

Ann Althouse said...

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Uncle Saul is in no danger.

c3 said...

Not a lot of press about the Religious Left (maybe because its not alliterative)

Here's the equivalent of Jerry Falwell for the Religious Left.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Can't you just imagine Jesus saying "It's not YOUR responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare. It's all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.".

You will note one of the prime examples of health care in the Gospels, the Tale of the Good Samaritan, has the Samaritan paying for the man’s care, ON HIS OWN. The Good Samaritan didn’t ask for a government grant or seek reimbursement or take demand that you and I pay for the man’s care…The Samaritan used his own resources. Novel idea I guess.

Certainly Jesus was about YOU doing or abstaining…”Go and sin no more”…He didn’t tell the womon to seek treatment, to seek assistance from others, He said, “Go and sin no more.” Even at the cost of poverty and malnutrition, as the womon in the parable was committing adultery, most likely to pay for food and shelter. Jesus was very harsh and demanding, “Pick up your cross and follow me,” “Let the Dead bury the dead…” “I came to pit father and against son, mother against daughter…” Jesus didn’t say “rely on others, He said rely on Him and the Father, and to pay great prices and bear great burdens, for doing so. Christ was not some touchy-feely Do-Gooder.

CR said...

Liberal Protestant leaders do see themselves as validators of government, when government is led by Democrats. Otherwise, they see themselves as critics of government. Either way, government is all important to them.

Richard Dolan said...

It's interesting that Ann's criticism is not 'separation of church and state' (which has no application here), but instead is Biblical. The suggestion is that religion is disserved by allowing itself to be used for secular or political purposes.

That's not the meaning of the 'two masters' parable (or of the 'coin/give unto Caesar' parable either). For many, religious faith involves a call to service that politicians have always found useful to invoke. The Founders (Jefferson included) all looked to religion as a source for the principle that 'all men are created equal' (at bottom, that's the idea that Obama is trying to invoke), a principle that comes from 'nature and nature's God.'

What is really strange in Obama's speech is not the call for help directed to religious people, in an attempt to engage their commitment to serve less fortunate folks. Religious people will respond differently depending on whether they think ObamaCare helps or hurts, a distinction that Obama elides and probably for good reason given how most people view ObamaCare.

The really strange part of his speech is this: "“The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law. ..." Obama is unusually fond of declaring debates to be over -- it's his version of 'move on' -- and his timing is just ridiculous. The 'detate' is about to move into overdrive, as ObamaCare sinks Congressional Dems everywhere (probably including Feingold and maybe even in NY). Those that survive will be looking to '12, and wondering whether they will be next if they ignore the message that the voters are about to deliver with a 2X4. Obama may be the only Dem who is, and is likely to remain, deaf and blind to that reality.

Prayer may be his only hope.

Joe said...

What changes have occured for the McManus' FLS? Specifically? Oh and they have gone thru ONE-QUARTER of their lifet-time coverage...they weren't even near the end of it....And underr Obama Care if the cost of her treatment exceeds a certain amount per year the government will cease to provide coverage, but will provide only "pallaitive care" and this is different HOW?

Fen said...

At least we don't believe in that separation of church and state anymore

Isn't it funny how its okay for Dems to use churches and funerals (Wellstone) as political pep rallies.

c3 said...

ST;
Doctors should make a good living. They go to school for a long time and endure a long residency.

It will seen odd for me as a physician to dipute that statement but you essentially used the Labor Theory of Valuation, a core concept of Marxism

Synova said...

Why do Democrats not get crucified (pun intended) for this sort of religious manipulation?

The only reasons I can think of are insulting and hateful, actually. I wouldn't mind some alternatives offered if any of the liberal sorts around here would like to offer them.

What I'm mostly reminded of is Margaret Sanger and her idea that black religious leaders who are trusted by people should be used to convince black people to stop reproducing like the cockroaches they are. (Read up on her... it's vile. Even if she never used the term cockroach.)

Synova said...

FLS, getting the government to steal other people's money to pay for "charity" is the ultimate in refusing responsibility. Fussing that "Christians" abdicate their responsibility honestly while everyone else abdicates their responsibility by forcing other people to pay so they don't have to is... well... probably typical.

But that's always assuming that no one realizes that's what you're doing.

You can always find a horror story, but try to explain why some little girl who isn't going to be refused treatment in this country and who absolutely would have fewer options under a government controlled system, is proof that "Christians" ought to pay for her instead of for their own children's teeth? (Or, for that matter, for the clinic they support in Uganda.)

shoutingthomas said...

It will seen odd for me as a physician to dipute that statement but you essentially used the Labor Theory of Valuation, a core concept of Marxism.

No, I did not.

It is the knowledge that doctors gain from their education and long residency that we pay them for.

That knowledge is scarce.

And, I'm not arguing that the government should place a valuation on the education and residency of a doctor.

Although it is not literally true, the market should decide on the value of the knowledge of a doctor.

But, my basic argument was against envy. If you envy the earning power of a doctor, then by all means become one.

former law student said...

There was no health-care emergency

Compared to other countries, we're spending twice as much on health care, but have less to show for it. Moreover, the trend is accelerating. I'd call health care an urgent situation calling for immediate action.

Realize health care costs make up an ever increasing chunk of our economy, hitting 16% of GDP in 2005 compared to some 4% in 1960. (1) In one year health care jumped an entire percentage point, from 16.2% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2009(2)

However, unlike the US with its patchwork health care system, countries with universal health care spend, on average only 8.9% of GDP. In further constrast to them, we leave ten percent of our population uncovered.(3)

(1) http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/COURSES/Econ/Classes/nhe06/

(2)
http://www.bnet.com/blog/healthcare-business/health-spending-hits-173-percent-of-gdp-in-largest-annual-jump/1117

(3)
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=45110

Synova said...

ST;
Doctors should make a good living. They go to school for a long time and endure a long residency.

c3: It will seen odd for me as a physician to dipute that statement but you essentially used the Labor Theory of Valuation, a core concept of Marxism

Me: Going to school for a long time is only part of it though. I happened to click through to a discussion last week and one of the people saying "stop being a cry baby" to some fellow saying that $250K isn't "rich" because of obligations and debt said, "Hey, no one forced your neurosurgeon wife to borrow that money for school, waaaa, waaaa, waaaa." And no one did, but we *want* them to, don't we?

Don't we *want* people to borrow all that money and take all that time and push through those residencies?

What I don't see is the point at which we then turn around and get pissy about doctors making a lot of money.

shoutingthomas said...

Compared to other countries, we're spending twice as much on health care, but have less to show for it. Moreover, the trend is accelerating. I'd call health care an urgent situation calling for immediate action.

What you've really argued is that we're an enormously rich country, and our citizens make a decision to spend an enormous amount of money on health care.

Yes, they do.

This is not an emergency for the government to do something about.

SteveR said...

FLS, nice try.

Thorley Winston said...

Is there a transcript of the teleconference available and is anyone else curious to see who was on the list of invitees?

former law student said...

The Samaritan used his own resources. Novel idea I guess.


A strange moral to be drawn.

Samaritans were a minority despised by the Jews.

Yet first one, and then another, highly-placed Jew (a Cohen and a Levite) knowingly avoided helping the half-dead Jew. Only the despised minority helped him.

So I'm not surprised that many self-proclaimed Christians ignore the plight of their fellow man -- it might cost them money!

Swede said...

I wonder if Jeremiah Wright will be preaching that from the pulpit.

It still says "Uniroyal" on his forehead where the bus ran him over.

shoutingthomas said...

What I don't see is the point at which we then turn around and get pissy about doctors making a lot of money.

Why should I "get pissy about doctors making a lot of money?"

I have a doctor in my extended family. He studied and work very hard. He works long hours and is very dedicated.

The residency part was particularly tough. My brother-in-law lived in the hospital during his residency.

I think that, no matter how you cut it, the knowledge and experience of a doctor is a high value skill. You can try to deny this and demand that the government place a ceiling on the earnings of doctors.

That will have very negative long term effects. At least I think so.

I've tried to work in the medical profession. It's mentally, physically and emotionally exhausting, even on the low level where I worked. For instance, nurse makes $80,000 to live with the anxiety of life and death decisions. There are many easier ways to make $80,000. A good technician in the New York City area can make that and go home at night and forget about his work.

Calypso Facto said...

RE: FLS, additionally Obamacare does not address cost controls, and instead INCREASES the cost of healthcare in the US exacerbating the spending you call a problem. Obamacare only attempts to address your point about covering the uninsured by forcing payments from others against their will.

shoutingthomas said...

So I'm not surprised that many self-proclaimed Christians ignore the plight of their fellow man -- it might cost them money!

Prior to Obamacare, nobody was doing without medical care in the U.S. Hospitals simply absorbed the cost of care for those who showed up in the ER.

So, what are you talking about?

former law student said...

I'm not sure where the labor theory of value crept into the discussion.

I'm pretty sure that doctors' earnings would have been limited under a single-payer system, that's all.

shoutingthomas said...

I'm pretty sure that doctors' earnings would have been limited under a single-payer system, that's all.

It's not the job of the fed to limit doctors' earnings.

And, quite the contrary will happen under Obamacare.

Obamacare is, after all, price fixing. Who do you think will do the price fixing?

Dare I say... medical professionals in federal bureaucracies.

So, in fact, Obamacare removes the last vestiges of market restrain on pricing.

traditionalguy said...

Too class...Unfortunately for Jesus he had no HealthCare Crisis to learn from. In the power of the Holy spirit, He healed them all and cast out all of the demons from those who were oppressed. But in our current status, we do need to care for the sick and oppressed around us. That comes from well trained MDs that your side now wants enslaved and discouraged as a career. The MDs that I know are stopping their children from pursuing a governmant slavery career. Why do you want the more people to die out?? As a good start to prove that Progressives are serious about the health of people, a truth telling Progressive President could resume saving hundreds of millions of lives easily by the safe and effective spraying of DDT to end Malaria. Or are you just a lame liar?

former law student said...

Hospitals simply absorbed the cost of care for those who showed up in the ER.

So, what are you talking about?


"Hospitals" "simply absorbed"

can you explain to me how this works?

Can I get chemotherapy though the ER? Who pays for this?

Can I get open-heart surgery through the ER? Who would pay for that?

Taxpayers will pay for me to get a kidney transplant or just dialysis -- that's been the law for years in our patchwork health care system.

former law student said...

The MDs that I know are stopping their children from pursuing a governmant slavery career.

Right, nobody wants to be a doctor any more. Med schools practically have open enrollment now. Anybody with a B- average can just stroll in off the street.

William said...

Americans drive fast cars long distances, own guns, love bbq, and, until recently, smoked good, cheap cigarettes. We will continue to die younger than other people. The downside of freedom is that people don't always make the right decisions; the downside of socialism is that bureaucrats don't always make the right decision.....Dispatch from the front: My allergist just dropped me. She no longer accepts Medicare patients. If you lower the MC reimbursement rate, it has effects.......I would prefer doctors to make a better living than malpractice attorneys.....I don't know if the various churches will get behind the health care proposals, but expect to see movies about cute kids whose lives are saved because of it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Yet first one, and then another, highly-placed Jew (a Cohen and a Levite) knowingly avoided helping the half-dead Jew. Only the despised minority helped him.

Poor FLS, please reflect on the Gospels, THEN write…Jesus’ attack is upon the FORMALISM of then-extant Judaism…Both the priest and the Levite were on their way to the Temple. They had duties and obligations, as Jews, at the Temple. As such they could NOT be “ritually unclean” and enter the Temple. To have handled the wounded traveler, who MIGHT have been dead, and to handle a dead body made one ritually unclean, would have PREVENTED THEM FROM PERFORMING THOSE NECESSARY DUTIES. It took, IIRC, 30 days to ritually cleanse oneself, time they could ill-afford, due to their duties, as Jews, as a priest, and a Levite. In short, they did not stop because the man on the side of the road was a “bother” and would cost them money, but because their religion and religious duties PREVENTED THEM FROM DOING SO. Jesus is attacking that formalism, by using the Samaritan and by demonstrating that the “correct” act was to help another, even if it did make one, potentially unclean.

This attack on formalism can be seen in Jesus’ whipping of the money-lenders, an absolutely necessary group for the operation of Judaism, at the time. It can be seen in the murmuring of the Pharisees and Scribes when Jesus performed a Miracle on the Sabbath or when Jesus abjures divorce, saying that it is Mosaic Law, not Yhwh’s Law. Jesus is trying to wake the People up to the REAL Message and Covenant of Yhwh, not just the laws of Moses, and the teachings of the priests and Levites.

FLS, if an unlettered son of Abram can see these things, why cannot you?

And BTW, you haven't explained how Obama/Pelosi Care made the McManus' life better.

ensfiel1 said...

one doubts the left will be in an uproar over this administration's "faith based initiatives"...

shoutingthomas said...

Taxpayers will pay for me to get a kidney transplant or just dialysis -- that's been the law for years in our patchwork health care system.

OK, the bill sometimes does get passed on to the taxpayer.

Sometime, it gets paid for out of charitable contributions.

Some hospitals pass on the cost in the form of higher costs to patients who can pay.

Your fondness for "systematic" as opposed to "patchwork" approaches is at the core of the political discussion.

I think that "patchwork" approaches, in general, work better. This is called solving problems at the local level, rather than the federal level, if you decipher the code.

The fact that the solution as been "patchwork," rather than "systematic" seems like a good thing to me.

And the fact that the solution has been "patchwork" doesn't seem like a crisis to me.

The crisis is and was invented for political effect.

The Crack Emcee said...

Yea, this makes sense because, as we all know, bringing religion into things always helps matters.

former law student said...

Americans drive fast cars long distances, own guns, love bbq, and, until recently, smoked good, cheap cigarettes.

Germans drive fast cars on freeways without speed limits, they relish unhealthy dishes such as schweinehaxen (a pig knuckle featuring fat and skin), and still smoke unfiltered cigarettes. Yet their health care costs are still only two thirds of ours on a GDP percentage; roughly half on a dollar basis.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

former law student said...

Both the priest and the Levite were on their way to the Temple.

Funny, Luke omits that fact from his story. Have you had a special revelation? Or is this from a Crypto-Gospel version of the Good Samaritan story?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

FLS, the US also has better survival rates for a host of diseases than do Europeans. We spend more, we get more…

Still waiting on what, specifically, Obama/Pelosi Care did to lighten the McManus’ financial burdens there FLS. Or how being ¼ thru their lifetime coverage made them eligible for bankruptcy. Looks to me like you and the McManus’ are just “phoning it in” these days, you just feel like you can trot out any old story and “prove” the necessity For or the advantages OF Obama/Pelosi Care. Sorry it takes a bit more here than say at Bartcop or DU or Kos….

shoutingthomas said...

Germans drive fast cars on freeways without speed limits, they relish unhealthy dishes such as schweinehaxen (a pig knuckle featuring fat and skin), and still smoke unfiltered cigarettes. Yet their health care costs are still only two thirds of ours on a GDP percentage; roughly half on a dollar basis.

Germany is a very different place than the U.S.

Here's an article about one of those differences: http://vdare.com/sailer/100912_new_synthesis.htm

And before you say it, yes the left denounces Sailer as a racist.

Sailer has written at great length... quite persuasively, I think... that there is a remarkable difference in handing out entitlements in a tight-knit, generally single ethnicity culture like those of northern Europe, as opposed to the multi-ethnicity culture of the U.S.

The majority of babies born in southern California are born to Mexican illegals.

Why do you assume that the "systematic" approach of Germany suits the U.S.?

Do you just have some sort of predisposition to things systematic?

former law student said...

you haven't explained how Obama/Pelosi Care made the McManus' life better.

Would you even understand that life is better when you no longer fear bankruptcy and homelessness? I thought that would have been evident.

Marshal said...

"I'm pretty sure that doctors' earnings would have been limited under a single-payer system, that's all."

True. Then we have fewer doctors. How do you think Canada and the UK ended up with their waiting lists? Do you think it was intentional?

former law student said...

the US also has better survival rates for a host of diseases than do Europeans.

Can you quantify that assertion and cite the source?

Synova said...

The idea that the priest and Levite were on the way to the temple may be because they refused to help on account it would make them unclean. If they weren't on their way to do something where that mattered, perhaps they would have stopped.

Which adds the additional element of demonstrating where religious observance can take the place of religious service.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Funny, Luke omits that fact from his story. Have you had a special revelation? Or is this from a Crypto-Gospel version of the Good Samaritan story?
From a commentary on the parable:
The Excuse of Religious Purity
Some believe that the priest and Levite might have had some justification for their actions. After all, as temple officials they were especially concerned about ceremonial cleanness. The Law stated that the high priest "must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother" (Leviticus 21:11). Even a regular priest "will also be unclean if he touches something defiled by a corpse" (Leviticus 22:4; Ezekiel 24:25). What if the man lying beaten by the side of the road were dead? The man may not have been stirring. One can't be too careful, you know. According to scholar J. Mann, the Pharisees held that a priest would not be defiled by touching a dead body when there was nobody else available to perform the burial, but the Sadducees (that may have included many of the priests) contended that he would be defiled.[10]

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Would you even understand that life is better when you no longer fear bankruptcy and homelessness? I thought that would have been evident.
Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology : 1
• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.]
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
• Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
• For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent

Pogo said...

"Can you quantify that assertion and cite the source?"

Oh, go to hell, fls.

That fact has been reported repeatedly, over and over again, in the past 10 years.
You and others on the left don't give a flying fuck what the results are. You are convinced nationalizing is the right thing to do because that's what all socialists think.

When it is pointed out how screwed up things get under socialism, the left talks about puppies and crying 3 year olds and Hitler as if he wasn't a socialist.

So go to hell. You do not and have not argued in good faith on this subject. Ever. Nor have the Democrats who voted for this monstrosity.

The Crack Emcee said...

FLS,

Can you quantify that assertion and cite the source?

In France, 40% of the population uses homeopathy (water) as medicine and polio is still common. The source is my own eyes.

Don't buy the bullshit - I lived in Europe, off and on, over the last 25 years - our healthcare beats the shit out of theirs and anyone who tells you different (Obama, Michael Moore) either has no direct experience with it themselves or is simply a liar.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Would you even understand that life is better when you no longer fear bankruptcy and homelessness? I thought that would have been evident.
They weren’t facing bankruptcy, FLS, read your own blurb…they FEARED bankruptcy, because they had run thru ¼ of their lifetime coverage. But thank you for your contribution.

garage mahal said...

Jesus was the original health care reformer. When the Greeks and Romans went to the temple with offerings in exchange for healing, Jesus and his followers cured and healed the sick for free. Not even a co-pay!

Pogo said...

"faith-based groups"

That term just sticks in my craw. Can't say 'religion' for some reason.

Whenever I hear it I know someone is about to talk some serious bullshit.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Jesus was the original health care reformer. When the Greeks and Romans went to the temple with offerings in exchange for healing, Jesus and his followers cured and healed the sick for free. Not even a co-pay!

*WOW* That’s amazingly silly..the Greeks and the ROMANS? To the Temple???? The TEMPLE??? The Pagans went to the Temple and the Priests, would have tossed them out!

As to the “no copay” Jesus didn’t cure that many, so if the sick, halt and lame had to rely on Jesus, Jesus would have failed about 99.9999% of them….
Lastly, are you suggesting that rather than go to the Doctor, I should await a MIRACLE, Garage?

Your statement is a stunning compendium of silliness…it’s like the “Death of the Ball Turret Gunner” a short poem whose explication takes far longer than t he poem itself, in that case Randall Jarrell managed to place incredible meaning within so few words. You have managed to place so much falsity and ignorance in so few words…You are the Anti-Randall Jarrell.

former law student said...

Why do you assume that the "systematic" approach of Germany suits the U.S.?


Germany's system is also a hybrid of public and private health care insurers.

The Crack Emcee said...

I don't know why you guys persist with this:

You can explain anything to a liberal - prove they can be totally wrong - and all they're going to say is "I don't care" and still advocate for it.

It's all just wasted time.

former law student said...

That fact has been reported repeatedly, over and over again, in the past 10 years.

Then digging out a cite should be trivial, shouldn't it? There should be one in your URL history, right?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Then digging out a cite should be trivial, shouldn't it? There should be one in your URL history, right?

And “Ask and you shall receive” one hath been provided FLS….

former law student said...

If they weren't on their way to do something where that mattered, perhaps they would have stopped.

So, wait, the point of the story is that Samaritans have more time on their hands?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
So, wait, the point of the story is that Samaritans have more time on their hands?

No, that the Laws of Leviticus, governed their actions, FLS. The point was, “who is my neighbor?” and also to demonstrate that Yhwh expects to do right…as Synova said the difference between religious duty and religious OBSERVANCE, IIRC. *SIGH* “There are none so blind as will not see.”

former law student said...

Lancet Oncology wants $31.50 to read their article, but I found this blurb on WebMD. For certain cancers, survival in Japan and France exceeded that in the US:

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

Maybe Crack got bad care in France because he's not a woman?

jayne_cobb said...

For FLS,

Cancer survival rates

"U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:"

garage mahal said...

LANCET ??????

jayne_cobb said...

"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women."

"American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men."


As for the single payer system you so wanted:

England has the worst survival rates


WV: Billy

former law student said...

I think Jesus considered the priest and the Levite to be assholes. If there were any excuse for their actions why did Luke omit it? He hated priests and Levites -- didn't want to give them a fair shake?

Jesus made the point several times that slavishly following the Law was wrong when it came to the Pharisees -- it must be a non-issue here.

jayne_cobb said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

"Maybe Crack got bad care in France because he's not a woman?"

No, Crack wouldn't let those quacks touch him after seeing what they did to women - my friends: bleeding one to diagnose a panic attack. Treating depression with water. Dropping one with paralysis on her head - repeatedly. Killing my mother-in-law.

If I got so much as a head cold, my black ass was heading home.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I think Jesus considered the priest and the Levite to be assholes. If there were any excuse for their actions why did Luke omit it? He hated priests and Levites -- didn't want to give them a fair shake?

Jesus made the point several times that slavishly following the Law was wrong when it came to the Pharisees -- it must be a non-issue here..


FLS short version, “Oh biblical commentary, time to duck and run.” Did Luke hate priests and Levites? Citations, please….Plus, much is assumed in Gospels, that you will understand the agrarian nature of society, things we are unfamiliar with today, hence the focus on vineyards, olive trees, towers for storing grain and the like….
OT, you understand that “let the little children come unto me” is a REBUKE of the Disciples, right? Because in Aramaic, the word for “child” and “slave” were the same…Jesus was rebuking the Disciples by allowing non-entities to have an honoured place with Him. Now that isn’t obvious, UNLESS one has an understanding of the era and its language and mores…again the Gospels, being written by men of a certain age, presuppose a certain cultural literacy concerning that age and its guidelines. It may well be that Luke ASSUMES “you” understand the laws governing ritual cleanliness.

former law student said...

I see the NCPA article mostly compared US survival rates to the "European average." So I wondered which countries in Europe were covered.

Here is the List of EUROCARE-4 countries. Note the repeated incidence of the UK health system, as well as the five newly democratic Eastern European countries.

Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Ireland
UK England
UK Northern Ireland
UK Scotland
UK Wales
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Italy
Malta
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Czech Republic
Poland

This article points out the variation in cancer survival rates across Europe, with Central Europeans surviving the longest, followed by UK/Ireland and Southern Europe, with Eastern Europe at the bottom.

Further, Sweden has the most bang for the buck, being ranked in the middle for per capita expenditure while providing the largest survival rates.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the article is that survival rates across Europe could be much improved if all countries fought cancer as aggressively in the extremely old as they do in the young.

http://www.cancerworld.org/Articles/Issues_31/Systems_%E7e%E7_Services/EUROCARE_4_delivers_its_verdict.html

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the article is that survival rates across Europe could be much improved if all countries fought cancer as aggressively in the extremely old as they do in the young

*SIGH* Death Panels, FLS….the old have had their shot, don’t you grasp that? They don’t fight cancer as aggressively in them because that’s a FEATURE OF THE SYSTEM, not a bug…..

Well, Christian virgins to seduce and de-flower, loans to be sharked, pounds of flesh to be collected, the blood of Goyim babies to be drained for our ‘special pastries” and generally conspiracies to be run. So I regretfully sign off for a while.

former law student said...

It may well be that Luke ASSUMES “you” understand the laws governing ritual cleanliness.

So you're saying Luke is inconsistent on this point? Because Luke explains the rules of cleanliness when it comes to the Pharisees in Chapter 11:

37 After he had spoken, a Pharisee invited him to dine at his home. He entered and reclined at table to eat.
38
The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not observe the prescribed washing before the meal.
39
The Lord said to him, "Oh you Pharisees! Although you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, inside you are filled with plunder and evil.
40
You fools! Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside?
41
But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.


I expect physicians like Luke to be consistent.

RebeccaH said...

This is nothing. Just wait until Obama tries to round up the witches! (Oops, I guess Christine O'Donnell and the Republicans already have that demographic sewn up, to hear the Leftstream Media tell it.)

Hal Duston said...

The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law
That isn't what is being said about DADT.

Rob Crawford said...

"Would you even understand that life is better when you no longer fear bankruptcy and homelessness?"

All Obamacare has done is shift that fear from a very small segment of the population to the rest of the population.

JorgXMcKie said...

Surely by now most of us have learned the uselessness of arguing with the obdurately ignorant have we not?

former law student said...

They weren’t facing bankruptcy, FLS, read your own blurb…they FEARED bankruptcy, because they had run thru ¼ of their lifetime coverage.

That's what I said, they feared bankruptcy. Would some good Christians have bailed them out when they exhausted Violet's lifetime cap, thus making their fear unwarranted? I invited the commentariat to cite examples of Christians "doing their job," but no one did. Synova said, essentially, don't count on it, as Christians had family needs and other priorities for charity.

Marshal said...

How did helping the poor become a Christian job when leftists claim it as their mantle. Unfortunately we see they have no intention of actually doing it. Their choice is to force others to perform their self appointed tasks at gunpoint, while asking that we grant them unlimited power to decide the scope of our responsibility in the bargain.

Violet isn't fearful because of Christians. She's fearful because FLS is posting political attacks instead of paying her medical bills. Get busy FLS! Why are you allowing Violet's family no succor from tehir fear?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

FLS said...

Synova said, essentially, don't count on it, as Christians had family needs and other priorities for charity.


FLS previously said...

We most likely would have had to file bankruptcy. We would of course have lost our home and we would have had to rely probably heavily on help from family," said Violet's father Matt McManus.

So Synova's system works. Charity begins at home. Filing bankruptcy is not the end of the world. Losing your house is not the end of the world. Having to rely on family is not the end of the world. If they didn't have family, they could turn to their church, their friends, or a private charity.

lemondog said...

re: McManus Walters family and Violet

Assuming two year old Violets condition remains stable and assuming no future technologies to ameliorate or cure her condition and assuming she survives to age 70, her medical cost would come to about $43,750,000

How many little Violets are there in need of such care? In absence of those balking Christians, how would you deal with such situations?

Thor's Dad said...

This is a parasitic relationship between liberal-minded Christians and government. The Christians think they are using the government to usher in the kingdom of God (of course most lib Christians have such bizarre understandings of God that its difficult to know exactly what they are worshiping). The government is taking advantage of their naivete to push an agenda that gives it more power. Once its done with the useful idiots they'll go under the bus...Its very interesting how they forget that Christians started some of the first hospitals WITHOUT government assistance.

Laika's Last Woof said...

"The health care reform act originated in the House and was passed by both houses. Aside from some jawboning, all Obama did was sign it."

You are wise indeed to recognize that Obama's best PR strategy at this point is to wash his hands of the health care bill and pretend he had nothing to do with it.

DADvocate said...

I wonder how many of these liberal whores will succumb. Then we can argue over which religion give the most valid validation.

If Bush had done this sort of thing lefties would have been having heart attacks in the streets. Instead, they're having tingly feelings in their legs.

c3 said...

ST;
But, my basic argument was against envy. If you envy the earning power of a doctor, then by all means become one.

I am one.

former law student said...

Another disturbing result of our healthcare system: The US has the fewest physicians per capita of any developed country except for Canada, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand. Apparently our free market system deters more people from becoming doctors -- socialized medicine could fix that.

Germany, France, and Sweden have 50% more doctors per capita; Greece has twice the number of doctors per capita that we have.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2010/Jun/1412_Anderson_measuring_US_hlt_care_sys_intl_ib.pdf

c3 said...

FLS;
I don't think you understand the points and purpose of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

But its not worth a bible study discussion.

I would point out that the hospital out of religious organization as an institution to care for the poor and sick.

AS far as healthcare/charity, I believe the Catholic/christian church has a pretty good track record.

c3 said...

And as for Democratic outreach to "faith-based groups", this really is nothing new. The "black church" has been both the religious and political center of many black communities for quite some time.

Here's the interesting juxtaposition (You'll note that Black churches are most comfortable with candidate endorsements from the pulpit.)

This is how things like this happen

Lee Reynolds said...

As much as I hate the left, I cannot in good conscience criticize them looking to religious groups for help in promoting their message.

The separation of church and state means precisely that. We do not have ecclesiastical courts in this country. The clergy don't pass or interpret laws. Government officials are not appointed to religious posts.

For the government, as one independent entity, to ask church groups, which are also independent entities, for assistance in promoting a message is not wrong. I don't like the message they are trying to promote, but I cannot find fault with how they are choosing to promote it.

Far too many people have fallen prey to the leftist lie that claims religious ideas and the organizations which promote them have no place in public life. They want religious ideas to be seen as a form of obscenity, something shameful to be hidden away. Don't fall for their lies. Lying is what they do best, but please don't be taken in.

mariner said...

fls:

Are Christians ready to assume the responsibility to care for two-year-old Violet McManus of Novato, CA? ...

Do your job, Christians!

I have a better idea.

Since you think somebody else ought to pay, why don't you left-wing atheists pay?

Do your job, atheists!

William said...

As I understand it, some of this national health care is being funded by asking physicians to accept a 10% reduction in the fees that they charge medicare patients. I just had the experience of my allergist dropping me because of the lowered reimbursement rates. In addition, my pharmacist tells me that I now have a $73 coppayment on one of my meds. I am sure that someone somewhere will benefit from this national health plan, but so far as I can tell MC patients will not be in that happy group......I lived in England during parts of the sixties and seventies. I was a smoker then. The Players brand cigarettes that were sold in the UK tasted stale and cost a bundle. I smoked a lot less when I lived in England. Perhaps the difference in the mortality rates can be explained simply by the fact that European cigarettes were expensive and unpleasant.

Pogo said...

WSJ today:

"By 2017, thousands of people in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio will be paying more than $5,000 a year in lost health-care benefits to make ObamaCare possible...

For some New York City dwellers, the figure will exceed $6,000 a year. Unfortunate residents of Ascension, La., will pay more than $9,000 in lost benefits.

According to the Book/Capretta study, the people getting hit with these very expensive tabs live in predominately low-income households. They are disproportionately minorities. They have trouble paying their own medical bills. These are the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans...
"

Nate Whilk said...

This is the SECOND time he's done this. A year ago: In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: "I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform," the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama went on to say, according to Moline's real-time stream.

http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=76&ArticleID=11291

AST said...

Of course, Obama is on the side of the angels on every issue.

But working for candidates and partisan causes is a good way for churches to lose their tax exemption, unless they're black churches. Then the preachers can give campaign speeches for some odd reason.

If they started preaching for Republicans, how long would that last?

Jum said...

But co-opting churches into allies of partisan politics is precisely what so many of the civil rights hucksters have been doing with black churches for more than 40 years.

It is simply a fact of American politics that many of the high-profile black churches have become little more than wings of the Democrat Party. The tragedy is not that they have a partisan view, or even that they express it. The tragedy is that far too many churches in the black community have abandoned their commission of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and instead use the pulpit to spread Democrat talking points. And thus they have become auxiliaries of the Democrat Party.

Their leaders and ministers are openly given legal bribes by Democrats, winkingly called "get out the vote money". For their quid the Dems get the quo of sermons aimed at steering congregants to the "right" candidates; plus on Election Day the bribed church leaders produce a massive and well-coordinated armada of church vehicles to transport voters to the polls (those who can be counted on the vote Democrat, that is).

The secularization of these churches happened long ago: it's just that Obama can't be bothered to pretend the churches haven't always been his party's street workers.

former law student said...

Even if the Heritage Foundation lacked an obvious axe to grind, author Book comes from the health insurance industry while author Capretta comes from the GW Bush administration.

former law student said...

If they started preaching for Republicans, how long would that last?

This guy seems to still be in the pulpit, despite his preaching that voting for Obama was a sin:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/

former law student said...

SteveR asserted that Christian charity would take the place of the health care reforms bill.

Whether through insurance premiums or taxes, I've been paying for other people's health care my whole life while using almost none myself -- I did once have to go to the emergency room when I scratched my eyeball hunting pheasants -- the shooting glasses didn't help, and my eye wouldn't quit tearing.

Revenant said...

The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law.

The Iraq war resolution, which plainly stated that Iraq was a threat to the United States and that invasion of it was justified, was passed by Congress and signed into law just under eight years ago.

Oddly, nobody seems to think the debate over the Iraq war is over. Weird, no?

AST said...

Every church has the right to state its positions on matters of morality. Sometimes those also happen to be political issues. It's a clever tactic to turn moral issues into political ones and then attack churches for crossing church-state boundaries, when the churches have had the same positions all along.

But churches who change their doctrines to satisfy current political correctness run the risk of losing their influence as moral guides and representatives of God on earth.

Most churches already do a lot to serve society, and it can only hurt them to allow their brand to become associated with a political party or government.

wv: owsworpl

dick said...

I remember when the Dems were all up in arms because W was going to use the religious to help people by charitable works. Their complaint then was that the religious would try to proselytize. What changed?

former law student said...

Oddly, nobody seems to think the debate over the Iraq war is over. Weird, no?

It's a different debate; this one is a post-mortem:

One by one, each justification for the invasion turned out to be bullshit, every prediction likewise, and W. did a complete 180 on his campaign promise not to engage in nation-building. So, what have we learned?

former law student said...

Their complaint then was that the religious would try to proselytize. What changed?

No money changes hands.

W wanted to give tax money to religious groups to achieve secular goals, because their goals aligned with his.

O wants to persuade religious groups to support secular goals, because his goals align with theirs.

Patm said...

touching on that:
http://www.patheos.com/community/catholicportal/2010/09/23/ameridolatry-becoming-quite-the-topic/

dick said...

anissuffls,

You need to checkup on black churches such as Rev Sharpton. In 2000 he announced that if Algore and Hillary wanted his support in the election they would have to come to his church and ask for the help. They came and he then announced that he was supporting the two of them.

In 2004 Kerry who is Catholic was allowed to preach a sermon in black churches during the campaign.

This was about the same time that the Dems were complaining that by using faith based charities, not even churches, the Conservatives were liable to be used for trolling for members and therefore should not be permitted to do charitable work using federal funds.

Guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored as to whether you can let churches be used by the federal govt and which party is in charge at the time. If Republican in charge, no can do; if Democrat, then full speed ahead.

Moneyrunner said...

This “separation of church and state” crap should really stop. When you read these discussions – which quickly become rants – it’s obvious that the left will deplore politicians who try to get churches to aid conservative causes and the right will do the same when the roles are reversed. I don’t see anything wrong with asking people who are influential to help persuade their groups that a particular policy is right.

What I find deplorable are churches for which faith in God is absent and has been replaced by political activism. That makes them nothing more than tax exempt “community organizers” who meet on Sunday. Jeremiah Wright was simply one of the more colorful examples. These are the churches that have already determined that it’s much better to lobby for government funding of good works than it is to actually do good works, leaving more money for building manses for their ministers.

The First Amendment has been twisted so far out of its original meaning by the courts that it is now interpreted as demanding total indifference to religion except if it show itself in the public sphere in which case it shall be driven out.

I wish to see ObamaCare uprooted and burned in a political bonfire and, if we are fortunate, it will be after November 2nd. But Obama has every right to encourage all the Jeremiah Wrights in the religious world to try to get them to tell their followers that Government Health Care will take care of them from government paid-for birth – or abortion … your choice - to government mandated death when their treatment gets too expensive for the government fisc.

JAL said...

@ shoutingthomas
It's called the "Affordable Care Act!"

What a laugh! Who came up with that honker?


George Orwell?

shyrgil said...

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

shyrgil said...

razors for men | dog grooming

shyrgil said...

Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Very useful info particularly the last part :) I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this particular information for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck. Razor Blades

college basketball fans said...

You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it wise. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a great site. college basketball fans | baby's first christmas