Has the point been lost on you that Jesus offered built in "medicare", however in the rush to have a state church it got lost in the shuffle along with many other things and the church found it necessary to reintroduce tithing. Caesar wasn't interested in healing anyone

Jesus offered "built in Medicare"? How did He do that?

So you oppose the government helping it's citizens, while let's face it, churches and charities leave many behind, as it's a huge job? As you see I'm a big fan of our government putting people before profits, and I think that's a good thing. A bag of groceries and a sermon, is not a bad thing, but diagnosing and getting treatments for disease and medical conditions both of the mind and body would be great.

I BELIEVE Jesus would support that had he known.

The current American "Caesar" doesn't seem to have an interest in serving his citizens with things they need either, preferring to enrich his cronies, friends, and family, and ignoring the masses, but he's a proven lying, cheating, dufus with a big mouth, and craves power. There is a growing support for Medicare for all here that may soon catch us up with the rest of the civilized countries of the world. More states have voted to expand there Medicaid system with the last election so there is a glimmer of proof that Caesar may have a growing interest in healing people.

Or put more accurately, you are in favor of coerced charity. Rather than Tal having to help the poor yourself, you would rather enable the dems to buy votes by forcing other people to help the poor. Jesus did not voice support for your position. He did tell us that we are to love our neighbors, and when we see someone in genuine need, to do something about it. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the GS did not go get a government official to help, as you propose, but provided help himself.

I'm a little surprised that you guys have not gone back to the OT for your support of taxpayer funded charity. In the OT there was a tithe that was intended solely for the support of the poor. It was 10%, but was only collected every third year, and was administered by the Levites. Maybe we could support something like that, a limited program into which everyone who has a job is required to pay in 3% (10% divided by 3) of his/her income for the express purpose of welfare. Instead, we BORROW money for this unlimited welfare funding which is completely out of hand.

Honestly, I would come much closer to supporting taxpayer charity if it was done responsibly and targeted towards those who are truly physically or mentally unable to work, but we all know that's not what is being done. It is largely a waste of money providing for those who don't want to have to support themselves, and is little more than a means of providing liberals with a "holier than thou" sense of superiority for forcing other people to do what they are usually not willing to do themselves, which is to actually help those in need. And that's not to mention a method for democrat politicians to get the vote of lower income people by appearing to be their saviors.

Hillary Clinton is not a "he", she's a "she". I assume that's who you are talking about.

Your translation of my words is grossly inaccurate and your post does not reflect the words of your savior or bible. I find no love in your posts and honestly smacks of hate and judgement. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your Christian views or position, and the main reason I cannot in good conscious join the club. The good news is that not all Christians are as hard core and selfish as you are and they may well TRUMP your own views of being your brothers keeper.

I'll take the last sentence as a snark retaliation as I know you don't assume whom it is I referenced. I write what I mean and mean what I wrote. I bear no ill will to any that can correct my facts though. Who's perfect?

I am the only one who quotes Jesus or the Bible, so I don't really understand how I am not reflecting His Words. But I am open to being shown in what way that is the case.

You think I am selfish because I do not advocate for a federal government that will take someone else's money to do charitable work? Selfishness refers to self. I am all for me helping the poor and I assure you I do so. I am not for forcing others to do so. Your statement is really a reflection of the deception of liberalism. "I am unselfish because I make others engage in charity."

The last sentence was intended to be light-hearted. Loosen up a little.

Your statement about viewing me as hateful and judgmental bothers me. First of all, your statement is a judgmental one if I've ever heard one, so perhaps you should refrain from what you accuse me of. But beyond that, perhaps I am not expressing my views accurately. Some of you have said that Jesus advocated, essentially, for Medicare. That is just not true. Jesus actively helped the poor, but He did not suggest any of us should compel others to do so, and that is, to me, the core of our disagreement. I quite vigorously believe that those who are healthy, which is certainly most of us, should support themselves and not depend on others to do so. That is not hateful, but in fact respectful, since I seem to be the only one here who actually seems to believe they are fully capable of doing so. Do we sometimes find ourselves in a hole and need help in getting out? Yes, and I understand that, but that should not be typical in our lives.

I would be interested to know what, specifically, you disagree with.

1. Acts 20:35 -- In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
2. Phil. 2:4 -- Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
3. I Thess. 5:11 -- Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
4. Gal. 6:9 -- And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
5. Luke 8:3 -- And Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.
6. Gal. 2:10a -- All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor.

**************
One of the purposes of a federal government is to levy taxes on all the citizens so that those citizens will all benefit in some way. Medicaid is one of those benefits. No one in my family ever needed government money for healthcare until my mother lived into her mid-90s and outlived her savings. She applied for Medicaid and was able to spend her last year or two being well taken care of in a nursing home close to her sons' families. If it hadn't been for Medicaid, I don't know what would have happened and where she would have lived and who would have taken care of her.

Let's start here then since welfare has been administered by both dems and repubs so why is it just a liberal fault? If it was such a waste of money, what should one do as an alternative when one finds themselves neither qualified or connected? Have you ever looked into the process or helped a deserving person through it? I doubt it since it is a fairly rigorous thing to apply for welfare, Let alone receive it, and of course we cannot forget the qualifications process to move from welfare to work. Have you assisted anyone in that endeavor? Sermons don't cut it, actions do. So yes I totally disagree with the assertion of your posts that all poor people are lazy. Most have jobs but are stuck by conditions, circumstances and personal issues. You mean all those vets that are homeless are lazy too? What about the mentally challenged, or the kids of the WORKING poor, or the OLD? Are they lazy too, or undeserving? Last I checked able bodied people are REQUIRED to work under the law, so according to you, both dems and repubs are guilty of not following the law, right, and the last 8 years its been repubs administering welfare not dems, so lets just drop the easy from the lips partisan talking points from the politicians and get with reality... CAESAR (Our government, of the people), fully support a social safety net befitting the greatest nation on the Earth.

So good luck getting votes from all those PEOPLE you judge undeserving, and call names. Who votes for a jerk that badmouths them? You got life and BS all mixed up. Next I guess you will blame recessions (And all the bad stuff), on poor folks!

OK, first of all, I have never, ever said that all poor people are lazy, nor have I even intimated that. A little honesty on your part would be helpful. I am not responsible for your imaginations.

As to the rest of your rant, I have repeatedly said that the mentally challenged should get assistance as well as children, so it would be nice if you would get over being angry.

Obama was in for six of those years, so unless he appointed republicans, and we know he didn't, that was dems doing the administering.

Good grief. If you are going to accuse others of name calling, you might want to clean up your own act first. You are the absolute number one name caller on this board. We could start with "The Dufus", but it certainly doesn't end there.


Wondergirl, thank you for listing scriptures which point out the voluntary nature of charity and the amazing value of hard work. And please note that nowhere in those scriptures is there a call for the government to take money from one person FORCIBLY and give it to others.

Medicaid is paid from Social Security funds, not from general tax revenues. So far it is being paid for in good shape, but the future does not bode well. As to the purpose of the fed gvmt, you are partly right, but partly wrong. The feds are to provide for "the general welfare". In other words, do that which benefits everyone, but not that which benefits individuals at the expense of others. That is a relatively recent development for the feds.

My point was that we are told that we are all in this together. Sometimes you will need help, and "WE" will help you. Other times, I will need help, and "WE" will help me.

Medicaid is not paid out by SS.
"Medicaid is a program that is not solely funded at the federal level. States provide up to half of the funding for the Medicaid program. In some states, counties also contribute funds. Unlike the Medicare program, Medicaid is a means-tested, needs-based social welfare or social protection program rather than a social insurance program." (Wikipedia)

Here is the concern. The growth of welfare spending is not sustainable. I'm open to suggestions, but it cannot continue.

Attachment 49108

That's a nice idea, but my point was that your scriptures do not, in any way, call for a government system of welfare. It is a call for the church to support it's own members, or even outsiders, and that's wonderful, but it does not call for me to force you to spend money on charity.

I'll add a little to that. I actually agree with you 100% and your description is wonderful. That, however, is an admonition to the church, not to the government. That is where our difference lies. Within the confines of the church it is a wonderful thing. The giving is voluntary and the receiving is closely monitored. The government is just the opposite. The giving is mandatory and the receiving is quite the opposite of closely monitored.

Your reply to the Medicare funding taught me something, so well done! However, it is just not sustainable unless we all want to get ready to pay a LOT more in taxes. 21 trillion of federal debt should alarm all of us.

But that's what we as a country have decided would work best and would demonstrate that we're all in this together. When you need help, we all will help you, and when Joe Blow in Colorado needs help, you and me and everyone will pitch in to help him.

Well there goes that 40 billion dollar super duper aircraft carrier. What does scripture have to do with government anyway?

If it was that simple it would be nice, but it's not. It's to the point that it is an incentive not to work, so I am arguing for a return to self responsibility. And I still cannot get away from the idea of what gives any American a right to take money from any other American.

Let me ask you this. Would you be OK with a plan to allow those of us who do not agree to simply opt out of that system? I won't pay in, and I won't be able to receive payments either. My choice. Do you think that would work?

Hasn't so far

Hospital and physician charges are astronomical. Nursing home monthly charges are breathtaking. What would you do if you were over 65 and hospitalized, then sent to a rehab facility or nursing home? How would you pay for it all?

Capitalism is great, eh?

I wonder how other countries not as great as us have managed all these decades.

That would be my problem, as it should be.

If you want to talk about the ridiculous cost of medical care, that would be a great conversation to have. Socialized medicine does not solve it.

Interesting to me that liberals often raise the complaint that we evangelicals should not force our moral values on others, but that's what you are doing when you force everyone to pay to satisfy your moral inclinations in this area.