Dear Friends,
If you are familiar with this site, you know that I have avoided jumping into the fray of politics. This is not because I don't have opinions or don't feel these topics are important, but simply that I did not consider this the venue for giving voice to those opinions. I am now going to make an exception to that rule because I believe that what is about to take place in Washington may literally transform America into something we have never seen in this hemisphere before (though we have had ample examples of it all around the rest of the globe). So, I felt impelled to share with you this recent dialog that I had with a good friend and fellow brother in Christ. It started with a brief email that I sent to a few choice friends and acquaintances.
Hey everyone,
I ran across this quote the other day. See if you think it sounds familiar.
"Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travelers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the party. Become a member!"
Now scroll down and see the original poster of which the above is a translation.
Greg
At first glance I thought you wanted us to connect the dots by linking the Nazi party to the the teachings of Jesus. Since that's too absurd even to think about, I assume there was some other intent.
Silly history games are fun, but only when one plays them from both sides of the board. For example, I'll make an equally silly move from the other side:
"Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators." Adolf Hitler, March 1938
"I think that the people of Iraq would welcome the U.S. force as liberators; they would not see us as oppressors, by any means." Dick Cheney, September 2002
"the people who live right now under a brutal dictator will view America as liberators, not conquerors" Ari Fleischer October 2002
"[Iraqis] view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror." Paul Wolfowitz February 2003
Seriously. The nazis built very nice roads too. That doesn't mean we should be suspicious that world domination and genocide are imminent when the city street department is more ambitious than usual about repaving roads.
Peace to all.
Eric
Eric
I don't consider it a "silly history game." There are some extremely serious changes taking place structurally in the federal government and one of the tactics being used to get these changes in place is to cover them over with promises of helping the sick and the children, etc.. etc. I think any time history can help us to take a step back and see these promises for what they are then it is a healthy thing.
Greg
Then the dangers of such an exercise are numerous. Chief among them is that the nazi discourse on the poster can be linked to lots of rhetorical strategies, not just those of the position one opposes. If you construct links between nazi rhetorical strategies and those of a position you oppose, you have to be prepared to accept constructed links between nazi discourse and positions you might support. All the items on the nazi poster, for example, have perhaps more direct links to Christian teaching than to current talking points on proposed social reforms. Christians also argue that it is good to care for the poor and the sick. Neither you nor I would hope for people to be suspicious of Christians just because an entity who did horrendous things also happened to use those same points of reference in its popularist propaganda. I don't think, as a second example, that the Good Samaritan was a proto-nazi just because he aided a traveler (nor that Jesus was a proto-nazi because he used the Good Samaritan to argue that helping a stranger in need is a good idea).
Christians also argue that it is good to care for the poor and the sick.
Another danger is that a very important national debate descends to simple demagoguery. If I support an important social reform and you oppose it (hypothetically), we can each have very good, well-reasoned motives. If you say I want a public option for health insurance because I'm like a nazi I'm likely to respond that your wish to see people die without healthcare is equivalent to letting people starve and die of disease in concentration camps. Neither of us in this scenario wants anything like what we've been accused of but the tone of our debate has changed in a way that prevents any of our good reasons from being enterered into the dialogue. Furthermore, we each eventually become suspicious that, in lieu of good arguments on which to base their position, the other side is left only with the option of scaring people away from the opposing position by cooking up links to nazis.
Finally, I think that by constructing this sort of artificial link, you do your own opposition to a proposal a great disservice. Perhaps the current proposals DO have some sinister aim that is indeed being "covered over" with positive rhetorical reference to "helping the sick and the children". If so, call attention to the specific sinister aim and show it in the proposal. To do otherwise only serves to create great suspicion in the critical observer that you are covering over some sinister aim of your own with negative rhetorical reference to nazis. The sinister aim most commonly cited is, for example, that what opponents of healthcare reform really desire is for the current administration NOT to achieve social reforms of enduring, "New Deal" sort of impact because such achievements also have enduring political benefits for the party that is perceived as having shepherded them. I assume that's NOT the only reason for opposing the public option for healthcare. But when your debate recourse is to link the public option to nazism, I could tend to suspect you lack substantive reasons for opposing the proposal and that what you really want is to see an administration failure whether the proposal is good or not.
As I mention above, I assume you have far better reasons than that for your opposition (if indeed you are opposed to a public option for healthcare). I would very much enjoy the opportunity to discuss with you and any other interested parties on your distribution list possible reasons for supporting a public option. Likewise I would enjoy the opportunity to hear possible reasons for opposing a public option. If we engage in that sort of exchange locally and nationally, any fears of a return to the Third Reich should be rather quickly assuaged.
For starters, if you oppose the current proposal(s), what are the specific features of it/them that most concern you? Sincerely and respectfully looking forward to your reply. Feel free to copy my reply to others on your list if you think any of them might be interested.
In peace.
Eric,
You have thrown down the gauntlett and I accept the challenge.
First of all, I would like to address your statements about Jesus. I see no danger of "connecting the dots" to Jesus because He made it clear that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). In other words, Jesus was not a politician. He did not seek to establish a political powerbase, one that would control people through police-enforced law. He came to establish a parallel kingdom where volunteer altruism and loving one's neighbor as oneself would be the norm.
Whenever that same standard is enforced through political power, then oppression is the likely result. This is true because political power is exercised by fallible men and women. Whenever they attempt to impose love, it ends up being an imposition of their will because it is an imposition of their limited conception of what love would look like in their ideal society.
Jesus . . . did not seek to establish a political powerbase, one that would control people through police-enforced law.
My objection to socialist medicine is that I don't trust the federal government. This is not to say that I do no see its legitimate God-ordained role in society, for that is one of the teachings of Scripture about government (particularly in Romans chapter 13). But the Scriptures also teach us to trust not in men but God alone. Power corrupts and the more power one has the deeper the corruption.
So I see as our most fundamental goal in any conception of government that of finding ways to limit the damage it can do. We do this primarily through having a balance of power. It is a truly healthy thing (not a utopia by any means, but healthy) that we have a robust private sector. The medical field has been a huge part of that private sector. Why in the name of sanity would I want to trust the government with this huge sector of the American society? What has the U.S. government done to merit this trust? They have destroyed the economy by enforcing their concept of loving one's neighbor and forcing banks to give home loans to those who cannot repay them. They have bankrupted the Social Security system through misappropriation of funds.
Yes, there is corruption at the private level, but at least the corrupt in the private sector cannot throw me in jail. Not one corrupt CEO has ever been able to squeeze one dime of taxes from me. We are about to turn the medical field over to those who wield the power of incarceration. Is that in the best interest of medicine? I think not. It certainly is not in the best interest of freedom.
Warm Regards,
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (9)
Subscribe to this comment's feedShow/hide comments
...
Here is what I know - The....Current.....System....IS....Broken!.
Here's a link. Read it. Then go and learn about what the current administration is proposing.
No...not what the news is saying.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes....e-systems/
If you have a better idea, then let's hear it..but stop spreading bad information.
Oh, here's the spiritual part: Romans 1:29b-32, 1 Timothy 5:12-13, Proverbs 16:28.
-
- +0
-
-
Against Socialsm in America
If that doesn't scare you then take a look at this video.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/...index.html
A European parliament member speaks on the subject. Please listen to the entire piece as it is very telling. Do we actually think that this can't happen here? We need to think long and hard before we accept this answer and before we give up our right to choose to our government.
-
- +0
-
-
...
First of all, thank you for considering me an intelligent person. I so needed that affirmation. I do however make mistakes and realize that the only real intelligent One is God and that all of us are dependent on His grace to help us see a glimmer of light. That is why dialog is so important.
However, for true dialogue to take place, we have to address one another's "points" (as you call them). You did not do this. You simply intimated that I had lapsed into a momentary lack of intelligence, and that my use of so-called "soundbites" adds nothing useful to the discussion and merely foments fear.
OK. teach me.
Which "phrases" do you consider meaningless "soundbites"?
Which fears have I created that you feel are unfounded?
Which point did I support with spiritual validation?
You mention that the system is broken!
Which system is broken?
* The medicaid system?
* The social security system?
* The educational system?
* The federal home financing system?
* The dollars for clunkers system?
* Or all of the above?
Hmmm.... Who has been responsible for running these "systems." Hint: It was not the private sector. I just don't think it's wise to give the new system to the very ones who broke the current system?
You mention offering a "better idea." Better than what? Nobody yet knows the intricacies of the Obama health plan of more than 1000 pages. Why the rush to get this thing passed before anyone has an opportunity to fully and thoroughly understand its ramifications and true legal impact? Do you even know what's in the bill? Have you read it? Here's the link: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/...71409.pdf . Read it.
Thank you for your citing of the various biblical texts. I agree totally that Romans 1:29-32 is an appropriate description of our current leadership in Washington. That's one reason why I don't want them to manage our health care system.
-
- +0
-
-
Broken System
Here are a few statistics taken from HealthCareProblems.org
Health Care Statistics
The inability to pay for necessary medical care is no longer a problem affecting only the uninsured, but is increasingly becoming a problem for those with health insurance as well.
Nearly 50 million Americans do not have health insurance, while another 25 million are underinsured.
The amount people pay for health insurance increased 30 percent from 2001 to 2005, while income for the same period of time only increased 3 percent, as reported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The typical family health insurance plan costs $12,000 a year or more.
Healthcare expenditures in the United States exceed $2 trillion a year. In comparison, the federal budget is $3 trillion a year.
The number of people who are underinsured has grown 60 percent to 25 million over the past four years.
The fastest growing segment of the underinsured are middle and upper income families. The rate of underinsured for those with incomes of $40,000 or more nearly tripled, to 11 percent.
The highest rate of underinsurance is in families with incomes under the poverty level (about $20,000), at 31 percent.
To consider an individual underinsured is a somewhat general concept which can vary depending on individual circumstances. The researchers at the Commonwealth Fund, however, define the underinsured as “people who spent 10 percent or more of their income on medical expenses (or 5 percent if they were low income), or people who had deductibles that equaled at least 5 percent of the family annual income.”
As part of the study, researchers found that the underinsured behave a lot like the uninsured when it comes to medical care. That is, they often don’t visit the doctor, don’t fill prescriptions, and don’t undergo preventive checkups and lab tests. Even when they go without preventive care and necessary prescriptions, many of the undersinsured are still unable to cover all their medical expenses.
In a study completed by the Commonwealth Fund, 45 percent of the adults in the survey reported that they had a hard time paying their bills, even with health insurance, and had been contacted by a collection agency or had to change their way of life in an effort to pay their medical bills.
Approximately 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses.
According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 28 percent of middle income families (annual family income between $30,000 and $75,000) stated that they were currently having a serious problem paying for healthcare or health insurance.
Most Americans would agree that health care reform needs to happen, but the disagreement is on how a new health care system should be structured and funded. What doesn’t work is a health care system administered by profit-driven corporations and health insurance benefits that are primarily tied to employment.
The United States is fast becoming one of the worst health care systems in the world even though they have one of the highest rates for health care expenditures. They are also the only industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care to it’s citizens.
The Taiwanese health care system is recognized as one of the best - it allows choice, easy access, and only costs about 8 percent of GNP.
The United States health care system is recognized as one of the worst - 48 million are uninsured, 25 million are underinsured, and health care expenditures are high at 16 percent of GNP.
Prescription drug prices in the USA are about 30 percent higher than they are in Canada or Europe.
-
- +0
-
-
You Still have not addressed the issue
Thanks for that information about the problems of our current health system. You site a lot of the problems we have with our current system. Of course, I wouldn't expect a site named www.HealthCareProblems.org to find anything good about our system, but that's beside the point. I don't think anyone is saying that we have a perfect system. I do not believe, however, that a massive takeover of the system by the federal government is the solution. My point in mentioning all those other failed systems is that the federal government was in charge of all of them. Every time they have grabbed what was once a private sector function, they have made it worse, not better.
-
- +0
-
-
The Issue
The previous administration had 8 years to come up with something better but they chose to ignore the problem due to the health insurance lobby and their campaign contributions.
The Medicare system has served the country well for 60 years but the baby boomer generation getting ready to retire will overwhelm it since there will be not enough people working to sustain it. This is why I have joined the Constitution party. http://www.constitutionparty.org
The federal home financing system served the country well until the previous 2 administrations deregulated the industry allowing greedy wall street bankers to have free reign.
Capitalism or Socialism or any other kind of isim you can name will not work without men of integrity running the system and men of integrity living under the system. The real problem we face is a lack of integrity in business, government and in the general public. We have forgotten the golden rule in our corporate and personal lives.
"Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith, and pierced themselves with many griefs"
1 Timothy 6:10, NIV
-
- +1
-
-
...
-
- +0
-
-
mistype
This line was supposed to come under The previous administration had 8 years to come up with something better but they chose to ignore the problem due to the health insurance lobby and their campaign contributions.
-
- +0
-
-
You're wrong
You wrote:
"You can still keep your private plan."
You are simply wrong about that. The health bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract - such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year - you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead [House bill, p. 16-17].
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan [House bill, p. 167-168].
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill [Senate bill, p. 57-58]. The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
These aspects of the plan, together with the unfair advantage of a publicly funded plan that "competes" against the private sector, will eventually drive all private-sector companies out of business. Over time, Obama will achieve his ultimate goal, which is to have everyone--except the politicians--on the government's plan.
-
- +0
-
-
Show/hide comment form
![[Unable to display photo]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2133/Shared%20Photos/gwaddell_cropped.jpg)
