pattygreen

Everyone in this country has an equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Noone will tell you that you can't work hard or long and get what you desire. Where there's a will, there's a way. You can be the President of the United States if you choose. There are many stories of poor people fed up with their situation who chose to put in the effort to better their lives. They worked hard, long hours, saved their money while living meagerly, invested in their desires, and made it big. They went to school. I know someone who started out as a Companion taking care of the elderly making $8.00/hr. she did that for a year while saving up the $1000. it cost to take a CNA course. She took it and passed and started working in a convelescent home making $10.50/hr. She did that for 1 year, then she got a $1.00/hr. raise. She saved the money for a down payment for nursing school. She took out a loan for the remainder and is now going to school. When finished, she can make upwards of $40.00 an hour. All this while choosing to rent a tiny room over a full apt. and eating at home instead of at restaurants and making many sacrifices so she could be a nurse. Yeah, she has to go without for the first few years while she is saving for her education, but she knows in the end it will pay off for her. This is what it takes to get into a profession that will give you a good pay and medical benefits. You don't get it placed into your lap. You must sacrifice some to achieve your goals. If it takes living in a one room apt., and eating mac and cheese for the first year to save for the schooling you need, then you should do it. If it takes using public transportation so that you could save the $400. a month it takes to own a car and put it towards your education, then you should do it. The problem with Americans, is that everything is given to them for nothing. They don't want to be inconvenienced or to sacrifice any luxury to get ahead. They know that if they don't have any heat, the gov. will provide it. If they don't have any food, the gov. will give them some. If they don't have the money for an education, even though they have a $10,000. car, the gov. will pay it for them. They know that others (hard working tax payers) will provide what they don't want to sacrifice and provide themselves with. It's so easy to take advantage of the programs out there rather than work harder and advance your situation on your own. The gov. keeps you content with little. I know someone who will not get a job as long as unemployment is still paying him. He said," Why should I work when I can get by on my unemolyment check. When it runs out, I'll apply for another Chef job. Right now, I'm enjoying the time off." He simply knew that Chef jobs areound here are plenty.

You want the government to make your HC decisions, but not make decisions on whether babys can be killed or not? WOW! That's screwed up.

so⋅cial⋅ism  –noun a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This idea erodes the belief in free enterprise. free enterprise   –noun an economic and political doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.

1.There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? 2."Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. 3.Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. 4.Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. 5.Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. 6.Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 7.Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. 8.Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. 9.A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. 10.Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

By KARL ROVE If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, there are five arguments Republicans must make. The first is it's unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits. Second, a public option will undercut private insurers and pass the tab to taxpayers and health providers just as it does in existing government-run programs. For example, Medicare pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay. Who covers the rest? Government passes the bill for the outstanding balance to providers and families not covered by government programs. This cost-shifting amounts to a forced subsidy. Families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result, according to a recent study by Milliman Inc. It's also why many doctors limit how many Medicare patients they take: They can afford only so much charity care. Fixing prices at less than market rates will continue under any public option. Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal, for example, has Washington paying providers what Medicare does plus 10%. That will lead to health providers offering less care. Third, government-run health insurance would crater the private insurance market, forcing most Americans onto the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone. Fourth, the public option is far too expensive. The cost of Medicare -- the purest form of a government-run "public choice" for seniors -- will start exceeding its payroll-tax "trust fund" in 2017. The Obama administration estimates its health reforms will cost as much as $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It is no coincidence the Obama budget nearly triples the national debt over that same period. Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted. One reason is there's no competition for these government-run insurance programs. In the same way, Americans can expect a public option to cost far more than the Obama administration's rosy estimates. Fifth, the public option puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors. If you think insurance companies are bad, imagine what happens when government is the insurance carrier, with little or no competition and no concern you'll change to another company. In other words, the public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system. Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum. Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse. Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

What about those "40 million without health insurance"? Socialists often parrot the "40 million without health insurance" cliche as an excuse for the U.S. government to force a totalitarian health care system on its citizens. I assume they are referring to the CBO report, "<A href="http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4210&sequence=0">How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long?" which shows that many uninsured are without insurance for a short period of time only. Also note that "without health insurance" does not mean "without health care". 40 Million Without Health Insurance? Before we conclude that our society is in desperate straits because 40 million lack health insurance, let’s look at the figure in full context and consider what it may or may not mean. - Tibor R. Machan, January 26, 2004 [strike the Root] The phony health-care crisis Many of the uninsured include young, well-educated, healthy people, who are unlikely to get sick. - Larry Elder, September 22, 2000 [TownHall.com] Miscounting the Uninsured Although many of the uninsured would like coverage, a number have chosen to be self-insured. These people are not poor. - Doug Bandow, Bradley Smith, Lawrence Reed, April 15, 1994 [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]

The Problems with Socialized Health Care This link shows all the countries that have socialized HC and the problems that go along with it.

Churches happen to the be the people who make up this country, not the building that sits there. The bible says that the church is God's children, the people. Therefore, we are already taxed. The people need to have a say in politics. And, the people give plenty to this nation. Christians are the fabric of America. It is the Christians who live here that give the most to society. The food pantries, charities and organizations that help people, donations to catstrophies, etc.

Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states. Among the groups of people served by Medicaid are certain eligible U.S. citizens and resident aliens some adults and their children, and people with certain disabilities. The government already has this set up for those who need it. Why don't they use it? Also, all the government needs to do is raise the income guidelines on Medicaid so that the poor who don't have insurance can get on it. So simple, HC solved! Then they can leave the other 85% of who are satisfied with our Ins. alone! I don't get why they don't just let those without HI get on Medicaid. Unless that's not the governments ultimate goal here. You know, to give the poor HI. Do they think we are stupid? Obviously. Their ultimate goal is to socialize this Nation, not help those that are dying in the streets without Health Insurance! Yeah right!

No. I would have looked for work elsewhere and if ins. wasn't included, then I would have bought it myself. Why should I pay for your HC? Or anyone elses for that matter. If they want to take care of all of us, what's next? They will provide our food? That's a necessity you know. without it people will die! Hey, 85% of all americans are satisfied with their health care. If the 15 % who aren't or don't have any need it, then gov. should allow them to get on the medicaid program that is already instated instead of revamping the whole dang thing and expecting the whole of us to get on a plan that the gov. wants us on. This issue is about government control, not provision for the few without insurance in this country.

Yes, Liberman is CT. Most politicians are corrupt. Just look at that Nebraska senator, Ben and The cornhusker kickback. But that isn't all his fault. He fell for the dangling worm. Obama is the man in leadership. He should not have allowed such bribery at the expense of every tax payer to get what he wants and the American people are clearly against. He's supposed to work for us, not himself and his cronies in Congress. And this from a man who said that there would be no more of that if he were elected. Yeah right!

Once again, Christians today are not under the Old Testament ceremonial law . They should however follow other old testament laws. "Thou shalt not murder" was given to us in the OT, and it is still significant now, as are many of the OT laws.

Two phrases that are often tossed around these days by supposedly intelligent people are "a woman's right to choose" and "a woman's reproductive rights". These are considered acceptable expressions while discussing abortion. They have become a way of taking the ugliness out of the process of denying life by those who feel burdened by the outcome of the intimacy they enjoy at will. They also excuse the actions of the male participant in the intimate activity who doesn't want to be bothered with the reslting responsibility. The observation one can draw is these phrases are indicative of people who view human conduct only in terms of animal yearnings. To consider human life has value beyond this level is to give life for humans a greater significance. But to do so is to limit a person's conduct choices in kind of an absolute way, which is inconsistent in the current relativistic attitude held by many. I haven't figured out how those who use these phrases reconcile their having made it into the world, and are enjoying the fruits of their labor, to their wanting to prevent new life from experienceing the same enjoyment. Perhaps you morally challenged people will explain it to me. Just because her daughter got pregnant as a teenager doesn't mean that she didn't teach her about what is right. (not having sex before marriage) How do you explain all the teen pregnancies from parents who taught their children the right thing? How do you explain the child who stole from the stoire, yet was taught that stealing is wrong? How do you explain the child who hit someone elses child, when he was clearly told that physical violence is not acceptable? It called the sinful nature. Just because someone is a Christian and truly loves God does not mean that they are automatically sinless now. ALL do wrong. Christians as well as unbelievers. The differnece is that with the Christian, the Holy Spirit dwells within them and convicts them of their wrongs, so they are more apt to reconsider doing things that contradict God's will. They are more apt to desire to obey God than unbelievers and therefore will do the right thing more often than a nonchristian. They are willing to adhere to God's righteousness, whereas a nonbeliever makes up what he feels is right in his own eyes.

So, you are trying to say that the old testament is irrelevent today? The 'whole' scripture is there for us to learn from, not just a portion of it. The verse you are refering to relates to women who have their period not having sex or they will be considered unclean. They are not sinful, only unclean. When someone in a Levite’s family died, God commanded them to bury the body, and they would be unclean until evening. Becoming unclean is different from being sinful, as proved by God commanding them to become unclean in certain situations. Do these laws apply to us today? No, they do not. Why? It is important to remember the purpose of the Old Testament laws concerning blood. In the sacrificial system, blood was sacred (Leviticus 17:11). A woman’s “uncleanness” during her period was symbolic of the value placed on blood. As a result, contact with a woman who was having her period was forbidden. Christians today are not under the Old Testament ceremonial law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26; Ephesians 2:15). There no longer is a sacrificial system. Jesus’ blood sacrifice paid the penalty for sins once and for all. The Levitical ceremonial laws do not apply today. Women deacons are mentioned several times in the New Tcstament (Rom 16:1-2; I Tim 3:11; and perhaps Phil 1:1); Deacons are leadership positions. Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.

Are you kidding me? Judges 4:4-9 speaks of Deborah who was leading Israel at that time. The book of Esther speaks of Esther's great leadership. Romans 16:1-16 speaks of a sister named Phoebe who was a Deacon in her church. That's leadership. There are many references in the bible about women in leadership positions. Women don't just feed children and support their husbands. God uses women for many jobs.

Absolutely true. People who need health care neeed to motivate themselves to better their own lives. They need to work and pay for their own insurance, just like everyone else. I didn't always have HI. When I was younger, I had a job as a bus driver for the public schools. They didn't provide us with insurance because I was PT, so I applied for FT work and therefore got the insurance. I actually had to work more for it. Wow! Now that's a concept.

One of the big reasons why Sarah Palin is so well liked by the conservatives is that she is a Christian. She is honest and sincere. She may not be perfect, for noone is, but when you are choosing a politician, you don't have many who have character and virtue, decency and a high moral standard to choose from these days. Every citizen has the responsibility to promote righteousness within the nation. Part of this responsibility is achieved by maintaining high personal standards. It has been said that "people do what people see"; one way to help maintain righteousness in Ameriica is to be a personal model of character and integrity. It is righteousness that exalts a nation; military might, economic prosperity, and technology advancement mean nothing without it. Only righteousness brings a ntion lasting success. America has, for many years, been a powerful world leader, feared and highly regarded by the nations of the world. The best thing we can do as citizens is live out the law of God each day by applying it to our hearts and lives. Choosing politicians and leaders who will uphold righteousness as God has outlined in his guidebook for us is the right thing to do.This is why Sarah Palin is a big hit with conservatives. They see her Christian virtue and it is good.

Same to you.

Most people are surprised to know that the Costitution does not contain the words "Separation of Church and State". So, what's its origin? At the time of the constitution, many citizens were concerned that one particular christian denomination would become the official denomination of the USA. The Danbury Baptists sent a letter to President Jefferson addressing their concerns.(Althought the states encouraged Christianity, they would not allow an exclusive state-sponsored denomination.) To calm thier fears, he replied in a letter to them: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Why did he select this particular phrase to reassure them? Recall that he was adressing a group of Baptists, a denomination of which he was not a member. In writing to them, he sought to establish a common ground necessary between an author and the group he was adressing. By using the "wall of separation" he was actually borrowing the words of the Baptist's own prominent ministers; Roger Williams. For William's words had been: "When they have opened the gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself...And therefore if he will ever please restore his garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto himself from the world..." According to Williams,the "wall of separation" was to protect the "garden of the church" from the "wilderness of the world". That 'wall' was originally introduced as, and understood to be a one-directional wall protecting the church from government. This was also Jefferson's understanding, as conveyed through statements he made concerning the First Amendment (statements now ignored by the court) Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United States by the constitution. Second Inaugural address: In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercize is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the Federal Government. A letter to Samuel Miller: "I consider the government of the US as prohibited by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the US. (10th Amendment) Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." Contrary to Jefferson's explanation of the intent, such power no longer rests with the states. In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Educ., the court reversed 150 years of established legal practice under the Constitution and decided that it did have the right to rule on an individual state's decisions regarding religious practice. Prior to that reversal, the courts had left the decisions as Jefferson and all other Founding Fathers had planned it-"resting with the states." State legislatures have been passing laws since the 1600's allowing the free exercise of religious practices in schools and public affairs: voluntary prayer, bible reading, the use of the 10 commandments, etc. These laws had been enacted with the "concent of the governed" and through representatives elected "of the people, by the people and for the people." Jefferson's words to the Baptist Association were soon forgotten since the rumor of a certain denomination becoming 'the official US church" never became fact. The letter remained in obscurity until 76 years later when it appeared in a case of Reynolds v. United States. The court did not use the words form the letter to separate church and state, but used them in an opposite manner. In that case, Mormans claimed that the first amendment's "free exercise of religion" promise and the "separation of church and state" principle should keep the state out of their 'religious' exercise of polygamy. Using the letter, the court showed that while the government was not free to interfere with opinions on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes between one denomination and another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws oaccording to general Christian denominational differences, not to basic christian principles. On that basis, they ruled polygamy was a violation of the Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian principles. 70 years after that case, in the 1947 Everson case, the court took 8 words out of Jefferson's letter (A wall of separation of church and state) and adopted that phrase as its new battlecry. It announced for the first time the new meaning of separation of church and state- a separation of basic religious principles from the public arenas. The court did not bother to present the context of Jeffersons phrase and how it had been originally used, nor revealed that it had been applied in an opposite manner in previous Supreme court cases. Those 8 words, now taken out of context, concisely articulated the court's plan to divorce Christianity from public affairs. There is no other instance in american history where the words spoken by an individual becomes the law of the land. His remark carries more weight in judicial circles than does the writing of any other founder. Doesn't it seem unreasonable that the Justices bypass all the other founding Fathers in order to find some words with which they could agree? And even then, they selected someone who was not a part of the convention that formed the Constitutional proceedings or was even in the nation at the time. And on top of that, they used his words in a manner in which he would not have approved! George Washington had much to say about the relationship of christianity to schools and government. Why doesn't the court quote him? The simple answer is that the Justices have found in Jeffersons 8 words what they want the First Amendment to say, and not what our Founding Fathers framed it to say, and not even what Jefferson understood it to say. There is no 'wall of separation' in the Constitution, unless it is a wall intended by the Founding Fathers to keep Government out of the church. Jefferson's words have been twisted to mean the opposite; now, the state must be "protected" from the church! There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it. It is amazing what continually hearing about separation of church and state can do to a nation!!!!

Christ has called his followers to be "salt" and "light" in our world. Because many moral issues are also political issues, Christians need to be involved in politics. We must pray, work, and use the freedoms we have in America to keep our country from succumbing to humanistic ideologies. Our country needs moral and righteous people to run for political offices and serve in government. Proverbs 29:2 tells us: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." It also states: "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (proverbs 14:34) Nations are righteous only so long as the people in them are righteous. Government always reflects the charachter of its people; therefore, our government needs the influence of those who love God and desire to see righteousnesss reign in our land. This is the conservatives reason for voting for those who are morally upstanding. Even though Christian people are not without wrong doings in their life, the chances are better that a Christian will do the "right" thing. Liberals and democrats tend to not have good morals for the most part. I see it in their stand on issues that are political. It is not hidden. They desire most of the things that God deems wrong to be acceptable and legalized. They feel that these things are their "right".

The mainstream media has a distinct bias. The values that drive the modern media today are largely secular and liberal. They are secular in the sense that they tend to interpret political events from a humanistic viewpoint rather than a biblical one. They are liberal in a sense that they generally promote big government and the view that crime and other social problems are the fault of groups (like society or the rich) or things (like guns or drugs) rather than individuals. The government and the media often cooperate with each other for their mutual benefit. The media needs the government for"official" information on political issues and events, and the government needs the media for favorable coverage of its policies in order to maintain public support. Thus, the news may be biased in favor of a policy out of obligation to a helpful politician.

There is plenty of opposition from the right about divorce. I for one feel it is an atrocity. God hates divorce, and for good reason.