1. Hello Guest! You are browsing the forums as a guest; you will have limited permissions as a guest so we advise registering to enjoy the forums fully. Remember: we are a Christian ONLY site - any user who is not Christian will not be approved. Blessings, Christian Forum Site Staff
    Dismiss Notice

Dealing With A Hostile World.

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by brodav9, Sep 19, 2013.

  1. If you are like me, you are praying against healthcare. As I prayed said to the Lord, Lord please honor your faithful believers who have chosen to always believe you for healing without the help of man. They should not suffer the punishment of paying money out of their checks to pay for health care which they never use.

    My thoughts are why is it a mandatory, instead of choice. You see not everyone will need care even though pay for insurance. Mandatory is the same as communism if more people vote against a thing than those who receive it. ---And still have to do it. It all is headed for the mark of the beast which everyone will have to choose for that will also be mandatory.

    we who have faith like the 3 boys in the furnace, JESUS IS IN THERE WITH THEM. 2Tim. 1:7
  2. This is something heavily debated even within Christian circles.

    On one hand, someone might say "But as Christians, we are not individualists--we should be praying for a means that we are all taken care of."

    On the other hand, another might say, "But as Christians, we should recognized the dignity of each human, and therefore we shouldn't apply force onto anyone as if we are all the same."

    I think the case for charity is an absolutely crucial part to Christianity. Like the Liberal rhetoric might argue, we should be looking at the well-being of others. Though as an Anarchist, I disagree that it should be handled by the level of the state. 1) The state equals force which undermines the dignity and value that we have all been made in the image of God. But also 2) If we allow the State to intervene, what room do we have as Christians to apply charity fueled by God? Charity would be left on autopilot, which by definition wouldn't even be charity at all.

    This is only my position on it. This is bringing in a debate on politics, monetary policy, incentives, etc. etc.

    One thing we should absolutely never forget to do as the body of Christ is to continually pray. This may sound like an obvious crowd-pleaser, but this is a strong weapon we have which should never be left aside.
  3. Greetings:

    The government is full of lap dogs and bagmen.They can't even do a parking lot(it ran three times over cost-projection).
    Only far gone satanists States should sign on for this boondoggle.

  4. Well my friends......we elected a man who is doing exactly what he said he would do so I do not see the problem.

    The nation is getting what it asked for x 2!

    National healthcare is a step in socialized medicine and that is because our president is for socialism. The problem is that socialism is the 1st step of communisom.
    Kurt75 and Mr. Darby say Amen and like this.
  5. #5 Roads, Sep 21, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2013
    Well, I don't live in America, and I have no interest in telling Americans how they should run their country. I do want to add to this discussion, though, certainly not to tell anyone how things should be, but hopefully to help ease some of the worries that Americans may feel about socialised health care:

    I was born in Canada. Canadians are really, really proud of their public health care system. It's like, the thing that they're the most proud of. Even more than Gretzky. My personal, totally anecdotal experience is that:
    (1) I always got free, high quality, fast health care, and
    (2) I never felt overburdened by taxes.
    (3) Canada has about 0% chance of becoming communist.

    I now live in Australia, which also has public health care, but Aussies are encouraged (via tax breaks) to also take out private insurance. My experience in Australia is that:
    (1) I always get freeish (some doctors "bulk bill," others don't), high quality, fast health care, and
    (2) I never feel overburdened by taxes.
    (3) Australia has about 0% chance of becoming communist.

    Lots of countries have public health systems, and have no political leanings towards communism. Actually, in both Australia and Canada, most political parties are increasingly leaning toward policies that look a lot more like privitisation (neoliberalism). The only country that I'm aware of that has strictly private health care, besides America, is China, although I think their system is undergoing reform towards public health care as well. Does anyone know of any other countries with strictly private health care? Maybe America is the only one?

    **Edit: see this Wikipedia list:

    Ultimately, though, I don't think public health care works in countries because it's inherently superior, but because the people are on board with it, are proud of it, and support it. If Americans are determined that it's not going to work out for them, then it's probably not going to work out for them. There's no perfect system. And some things are probably genuinely just hopeless ideas. But generally, I think the people of a nation can make almost anything work out well if they support it, and are determined to make it work.
  6. This is true, but many of us didn't vote for him but are still under the tyranny. This is why I have a problem with democracy.

    While I do agree with you, I'd even say socialism isn't much better than Communism -- one merely ends with the gun while the other begins with the gun. Neither promote freedom nor do they acknowledge the dignity of humanity.
    Mr. Darby likes this.
  7. Of course? It is mandatory….

    similar to taxes, it is not voluntary…. some goes to health care, some goes to other spending that you might not agree as well: exorbitant space exploration?

    At least, health care has more immediate effect on one’s community than finding new planets or galaxies?
  8. I'd argue that the intention certainly does, and perhaps the intentions are genuinely good, but they can also have more damaging outcomes, like rationing, private practices closing shop, possible longer waiting periods (check out the average waiting period in Canada or England when it comes to scheduling appointments--or even emergencies), and yes, even death panels are possible.
  9. I didn't vote for him either!

    No one said that a democracy was good. It is that it is better than the other forms available that makes it look good.

    Socialism is the FIRST step toward communism and yes.....both are bad and that is why I have so much concern for America.
  10. #10 aha, Sep 22, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2013
    Am addressing the OP Title: “Dealing with A Hostile World”….

    We live in a society…

    Somebody has to run the society, the authority….

    Power is to be given to the authority, the law…

    One cannot enforce law without resources, tax

    The authority determines where to spend the tax, the budget: military, education, sanitation, etc...

    Should health care be in the budget? I think so….. in fact Of course! Even poor countries do that!

    What is hostile about that?
  11. I think the intention could be genuinely good, but there more beneath the surface that isn't being noticed.

    For example, taxation itself--or at least the way it is collected. It's not voluntary and is done by force. If a family man has a financial plan for his family but then he is told he has to pay taxes--even if they are for programs he doesn't support or use--he has to pay anyway otherwise the govt comes to his house and puts him in jail by force.

    Many countries that have socialized health care also lack innovation, have longer waiting periods, and rationing.

    It's right to be concerned for those who can't afford health care, and we as Christians should especially strive to help the poor, but we shouldn't 1) steal from Peter in order to give to Paul, and 2) we should think about the repercussions of our actions--even d the intentions are genuinely good.
  12. #12 aha, Sep 22, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2013
    I think you are addressing efficiency of implementation here or at least matrix of how much to pay….

    It is different from a country should have a health care sytem?

    Because it seems to me health care is being equated to a socialism/communism?

    Regardless if a country is a democracy or a socialist or communist, health care is usual part of a government program
  13. Sorry, I'm misunderstanding this question.

    I don't think health care is being equated to socialism or communism, but just like many other programs, health care can be used as a means to justify socialism or communism. I think it is best left to private and voluntary contract, and this includes charitable organizations.

    By no means do I have a hostility toward those in need and are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need to use the govt. subsidies, but I do put the blame on the govt. for their mistakes.

    These messages of good intentions pushed by the State is one of the things that catches countries off guard. It led to my great grandparents fleeing Soviet Russia.

    I'm kind of an old fashioned, old, old Right, Austrian economics supporter.
  14. #14 Roads, Sep 22, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2013
    American taxpayers currently pay more per capita for heath care than their public health care counterparts, for various reasons: http://www.cnbc.com/id/44180042 The US government probably expects to save money under a public health care system. Maybe Peter would be able to hang on to a bit more of his hard-earned, and Paul won't have to miss out on health care?

    You're right about waiting times. They'll probably increase under public health care, because everyone would have equal access to services. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States shows that wait times for Americans on Medicaid are on the longer side of comparable to wait times in Canada. So you could say that wait times in America are shorter. Or, you could say that wait times for 53.1% of Americans (the # of Americans with private insurance) are shorter, the wait times for 31.8% (public health care) of Americans are longer, and 15.1% of Americans don't have any health coverage at all. If the poorer half of Americans suddenly had equal access to those services, yeah, it would be a surprise if wait times didn't increase for the wealthier half.

    Still, I don't think that public health care is inherently superior to private health care. Different economic and social structures are going to work for different cultures.

    Perspective, I think, makes a big difference on how national changes are received, and whether or not they will succeed. I do notice that Americans seem to link public health care with socialism, and seem to fear that changes toward socialism could lead to changes toward communism. People who live in countries with successful public health systems tend to view public health care as a basic human right. When I, for example, see changes toward privitisation in health care, I tend to see those changes as a first step toward a dystopian nightmare where corporations rule, and ruthlessly vie for power over a smog-filled megacity where trees are extinct and our leader is a holographic projection of an artificial intelligence. I wish I was exaggerating. Perspective. When Americans worry that public health care will lead to communism, I get that. It goes against everything their worldview says about what makes a good country. Public health works really well in lots of countries. In all honesty, it's probably not the right move for America.
  15. I think attributing public health care to an economic downfall would be being too selective on economics. It would be ignoring other subsidies, regulations of the market, our cost of foreign involvement and aid, the taxation on people who can't afford it (namely those who run businesses but can't afford to keep it afloat because they've been soaked via taxation--even while their margins are running thin), and of course fiat printing. I'm probably especially concerned with the Federal Reserve's activity and would like to see it abolished. It is one of the biggest causes for inflation which leads to financial discouragement. This is why many presidents in past years have expressed wanting to simply end it, but unfortunately most in recent years have no interest of ending it.

    Andrew Jackson ended the National Bank--a central banking system in the 1800s--because he was well aware of what it could do to sound money and also how it could promote government corruption. If a government can just create their own legal tender, there's no limit to what they can do and it removes some of the necessary checks and balances.

    I think Jefferson was the one that called printed money "the ghost of money."
    Roads likes this.
  16. What you mean, Austrians have option not to pay health care? Just kidding* : )
    They have option to completely pay for their care privately….
    but still…. everyone who pays taxes support the public system, whether they use it or not….

    *I heard Austrian School of economic thought long time ago when there is no internet/ Wikipedia yet… : )
    I made a quick browse….
    Interesting POV, a policy making POV….
    Although I do not completely agree, yes, in some aspect.

    Am more into the practical, a combination of right and left,
    The most efficient way…
    It is cheaper to get services in volume: can a private company or a government agency can get the best price?
    Am with whoever can get the best price and best services.
  17. #17 LysanderShapiro, Sep 23, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
    Austrian Economics doesn't really have much to do with Austria at all, but it looks like you were making a joke, so I'm probably the one who looks like a clown for saying this :p

    I'm not sure I agree with that second statement. While people can to fight taxation, many who do do it legally and civilly. Of course there are those who choose civil disobedience, many might have a wife and kids and can't make the same risky decisions as others because they don't want to compromise the well-being of their family.

    Consider this analogy; we are told to turn the other cheek if someone slaps us, but this doesn't mean we support or endorse their violent and aggressive behavior.

    I pay taxes, but I do not support the public system. This probably shouldn't be my core reason, but my core reason why I do is because I don't want to go to jail and leave my wife behind.

    You are probably more aligned with the Chicago School of Economics (economists like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams). I think they are a good compromise, but I don't side with them 100% ideologically--probably only practically. Either that or you're aligned with Keynesian Economics, which I would disagree with.

    Ideologically, my leanings are more toward Anarchy--but not the way you may think. Not in terms of destruction or aggression or abuse that most people think, but rather keeping things under private and voluntary contract. I use the word the same way it was used by J.R.R. Tolkien, Lysander Spooner, and Murray Rothbard. People like Che Guevara, Marx, or the Occupy Wall Street crowd were NOT--I repeat, they were NOT Anarchists like some say -- in fact, they were the opposite. Those who claim the term "Anarchist" because they think the govt. protects private property and is supposedly wrong don't realize that the govt. lives off of private property. I respect private property and believe others shouldn't take by initiation of force. In other words, I believe in voluntary trade and capitalism in the purest form -- not crony-capitalism. And of course I believe in Charity. But charity isn't charity when it's forced out of your hands. That undermines charity.

    Keep in mind, no matter the price of the private sector, the public sector will always cost more--maybe not from you, but from someone, especially since govt. can't build capital, they can only inflate it. This is much more costly and discouraging to the family.
  18. #18 aha, Sep 23, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
    I think voluntary cannot always be the case…
    When we ride a public taxi or a bus, there is always a contract….
    Is it voluntary contract between the driver and the passenger? not always…

    Somebody is going to hit someone… either wilfully or by accident…
    There goes “no hitting” law…
    Will the hitter voluntarily agree on that law? not always….

    Precisely why I think law was ordained… root word of law is layer: an agreement to put things in order…

    A nation without a vision will crumble ( I think there is a bible verse to that….)
    Precisely why the first step of a new nation is a constitution, i.e. law
    A law can be verbal agreement but people do forget….
    So it is put into writing….

    Somebody has to enforce the law… the lawyers, policy makers….
    Enforcing the law needs resources….
    And there goes the long story to tax and healthcare …
    Will everyone agree on law on tax and healthcare? not always…
  19. Indeed--don't let the term "Voluntary" be confused with a Utopian society where everyone agrees with everyone and no conflict ever happens.

    An Anarchic society (which, if it happens, would probably only happen in small pockets--this is what people are working to do with the state of New Hampshire called the 'Free State Project') is one without legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual, which is exactly what happens under a government.

    I've always had a tough time wording the case for when a dispute is to happen under a Voluntary society. This is what Murray Rothbard wrote in 'Man, Economy, and The State'...

    Though this is, for me anyway, more ideological. I think there will probably at least need to be an alternative.

    Under a voluntary society, this wouldn't be there would be no police, no justice, no prisons for those who have violated property and human rights, etc. etc. Obviously, if someone hurts someone else, justice would need to be served and the punishment would need to fit the crime.

Share This Page