Health care for every citizen in Oregon

Wow, Jeff.
This is great!
I just have a few questions.
Does this mean that people will have a right to government-payed fro health care?
Because, as you know, the government doesn't produce anything that would make a profit that could be tapped to pay for it, so I assume the money is going to come from increased taxes and fees that taxpayers will have to pay.
Jeff, many of us who live and work in the private sector operate on a budget so we can plan our personal expenditures.
I've given up on the notion that what I'm able to earn is my money, but I would like to know how much this is going to cost well ahead of time, so I can plan on where I'll need to cut back in order to pay for it.
I'm blessed in that my basic necessities are covered now, but I need to know if I should stop going out to eat as often, or cut back on movies, car washes, and weekend trips, or put off that flat screen purchase, or choose a less expensive vacation, or pare down my clothing budget, or keep my car instead of buying a new one, or if I'll need to cut back on charitable giving.
Oh yeah, I imagine that everybody else, including my customers, will have less to spend too, and so I should try to figure out how much my income will drop in order to pay for this new right.
Better yet, it would be useful if the taxing entities, fed, state local, could all get together and just tell me how much of my pay I can keep after everybody else's rights are payed for.
Planning for my financial expenses and knowing how much disposable income will be available ahead of time, or how much I'll have to borrow will really help me in my budgeting.
Thanks.

It's too bad the above poster doesn't realize how much he's already paying for a faulty system. How much does the above poster pay for a monthly premium? Would they not want affordable health care, and less costly monthly payments? I wish people would take a minute and learn about how health care for all will lessen costs and save lives.

Personally, one of the big reasons I support Merkley for Senate is because of his strong advocacy for health care for all Americans.

Health care costs are becoming increasingly burdensome on businesses as well as on individuals. The health care funding that we currently have is a patchwork of pieces (Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance) that were put together at different times for different needs. It's not an efficient system, and those that have insurance end up paying for those that do not.

Recognizing that health care is a fundamental right of Oregonians is an important step in reconsidering how health care is managed in this state and country. I'm glad that Speaker Merkley is fighting for better health care for Oregonians.

Sarah,
I know exactly how much I pay for my health care premiums, and am very happy with the quality of care I'm getting.
Forgive me if I can't believe that a government-run, government mandated health care system that requires me to pay someone else's premiums on top of my own costs after being funneled through a government bureaucracy is going to be less costly or better in any way.
If you like how the DMV is run, just let them run YOUR healthcare system, but count me out, please. Oh wait, it has to be "mandatory" or it won't work.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why someone has a "right" to my money for their healthcare.
Socialists are always generous and compassionate with other people's money, and then quick to take credit for it. They are the last to dig into their own pockets to help others directly.
John Edwards had plenty of his own money from slip-and-fall fees, and yet gave many campaign trail sob stories about down-and-outers. I never heard one report of him whipping out his checkbook to help people directly. It probably never occurred to him.
Government run retirement is sure working well, isn't it? Social Security has been the biggest rip-off in history. It's just lucky for politicians that most government school-educated voters know nothing of finance and the time-value of money, or how the SS system functions. Your classic ponzi scheme.
If you want socialized healthcare, move to Cuba...please.
If you think health care is expensive now, just wait til it's "free".
I've always considered stealing to be wrong, even if it's theft by proxy, with some big-hearted politician as the bag man.
Yes,I would be happy to see my health care premiums go down, but control of the delivery system and commie wealth redistribution is the leftists goal, not control of costs.
If the politicians were serious about costs, they could shave 10-20% just by passing reasonable tort reform or instituting a loser-pays civil court system.
But the that would displease the Dem's biggest campaign contributors, the trial lawyers, so doctors and hospitals will continue to waist enormous amounts of time and resources by having to practice defensive medicine.

Brad, I too know how much I pay for health insurance. And while I'm happy with the level of care that I receive from my long-time family doctor, my premium costs have steadily risen while the coverage has steadily decreased. Meanwhile, my take-home pay has NOT kept pace with inflation.

In short, I'm losing financial ground and health insurance is where I'm losing the most ground. The system is very clearly broken.

You may be content with the emerging plutocracy. I am not. And I intend to vote accordingly - for Jeff Merkley.

Now, you probably don't like that fact. So, to show you what a stand-up kind of guy I am, I would like to help you. Just post your mailing address and I'll mail you a Quarter so that you can call someone who wants to hear your tired old right-wing talking points. Might I suggest someone who is a fan of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh?

In Christian love,

Kevin

Hey Kevin,
Wow, what a stand up guy you are, and a loving christian too.
You are so like, totally awesome.
Those tired old talking points, as you call them, are based in sound judgement, wisdom and guiding principles, and not just whimsical feelings.
Communism is not such a new idea either. It has failed everywhere it's been tried.
The so-called plutocracy that you allude to is not coercive, it is the natural result of some individuals working harder, longer, and smarter than others who choose not to, or for other reasons, are less successful.
Our Constitution only seeks to provide a level playing field and provide equal opportunity, and not equality of outcome.
The fact that your take home pay not keeping up with inflation is not my fault, and is not the fault of the guy down the street who has a newer car or a bigger house than you.
As a christian, I would suggest that you study the tenth commandment. Envy is greed's handmaiden.
I am acquainted with a number of physicians, and am closely related to an ER doc who is nearing retirement after thirty years of dedicated and competent service. We have had many discussions over the years, and yes, we all agree that health care costs are too high, and that something needs to be done to make it more efficient.
Much can be done, but putting the same government in charge of a system that is too expensive largely because of onerous regulations, red tape, and a legal system that thrives on a sue-happy public (legal lottery) is not the answer.
The medical provider is forced to practice defensive medicine.
The ERs are required to treat everyone who comes through the door, regardless of whether their problem is an actual emergency or not, or whether or not they can pay their bill, and many do not.
The hospitals and staff face ruinous liability exposure unless they can prove in a court of law that every conceivable treatment and diagnostic procedure is used in every single case, and this tremendous expense ha absolutely nothing to do with sound and reasonable medicine.
My ER doc relative sometimes spends hours dictating detailed procedures and treatments for each case at the end of every shift, to a large degree, merely to protect himself in the event of a law suit.
This is neither an efficient system, nor a sane one.
People actually go to the most expensive treatment provider, the ER, for stubbed toes and rhinovirus infections rather than a family practitioner or an immediate care provider, precisely because the law says they can get "free" treatment at the ER.
The other major cause of health care cost inflation is one I don't have an answer for. Modern medicine is making it possible for people to live longer, and thankfully, have more active and productive lives to a much longer age than twenty years ago.
The downside is that it is expensive to treat cancer, patch up hearts, and mitigate a lot of the other diseases that used to give us shorter life spans.
Over 50% of a persons life time health care costs are often incurred in order to prolong the last three months of life. Is it worth it? I don't know.
The Merkley plan, and the Clinton Plan, and the Obama plan all fail to address these issues. The reasons are many, and some of them point to political graft and influence peddling.
I wouldn't be writing this if Jeff wasn't running for the US senate, and I think, planning to bring his socialist ideas to DC.
I believe that marxist programs may be within the realm of state constitutionality, and if Oregon stays on the socialist path, I'll probably head to another state that places more value in freedom than Oregon's electorate does(I know, good riddance).
However, If Jeff heads off to DC, the federal constitution is much more restrictive in what the appropriate role of government can play. It's true that most politicians (and quite a few judges) either don't understand constitutional limits on power, or they just choose to ignore them, even as they swear an oath to uphold it.
The federal treasury is an awfully big cookie jar, and it is a mighty temptation to hand out cookies to special interests for favors, and placate the feelings of "compassionate" constituents by showing compassion with other people's money.
The rich in this country, and the big business meanies are the very ones who are carrying the other 90% who aren't doing so well.
Voluntary charitable giving by wealthy conservatives ha historically been much higher than the amounts given to private charities by wealthy liberal. Libs think that government-mandated programs (that mostly benefit career politicians and bureaucrats) are the best vehicle for charity, and so give less beyond their taxes.
Sure it feels good, but do government programs work as well as a private foundation or charity? Do you know? Do you care?
Rights are great, but they can't be simply the result of whimsical and political expediency.
They certainly should not be for the benefit of one group at the expense of another... even if you don't like that group.
Try to keep in mind the notion of equal protection under the law. It's one thing that, when adhered, to keeps us all on the same side of the fence.
I would sooner vote for Horatio than Merkley or Smith:
http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/11/09/not-yours-to-give/

It's funny how doctrinaire Objectivists, who claim to pride themselves on their rational and honest argumentation, always wind up sounding like faith based reactionaries.

Here are a few factors that might be worth considering, (I know that the legislators have been considering them)

When the US Constitution was written, people had access to pretty much the same healthcare across the board. Leeches and trepanning tools, are after all relatively low tech, and have about the same effectiveness whether deployed on Crispus Attucks or George Washington.

The insurance industry is one of the only industries in the US that has been exempted from the need to compete. Here's some testimony from J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America:

"The McCarran-Ferguson Act is a truly astounding piece of legislation. The Act takes two
controversial steps:
1. it delegates the regulation of insurance entirely to the states without providing any
guidelines or standards for the states to meet and without mandating any continuing
oversight by GAO or other federal entities, and
2. it exempts insurance companies from antitrust law enforcement, except for acts involving
intimidation, coercion and boycott.

Allowing corporations to collude in pricing and other market activities results in higher
costs for buyers. Since the antitrust exemption was enacted in 1945, study after study by the
federal government has called for an end to it. Both business and consumer buyers of insurance
have also called for this virtually unprecedented industry-wide antitrust exemption to be revoked..."

Then there's the FACT that there is no correlation between your favorite bugaboo "frivolous lawsuits" and the increase in Physician malpractice insurance premiums. But you Hair Club guys have managed to sell this meme to the public and to physicians themselves.

So once again, "The Invisible Hand" is picking my pocket and yours, but you can only see the mythical Free Market.

Health Care should indeed be a right, and until you get a clue about my right not to pour money into the latest Defense contractor's account in the Bahamas while his shareholders in government gin up another imaginary foreign policy crisis (for which we are borrowing around $10 billion per month from our grandchildren), I'll feel free to ignore your intellectually dishonest rants and specious comparisons of what's in the interest of the Common Good.

Brad,

I'm not sure that Jesus would agree with your contention that wanting my kids to be healthy and recieve competent medical care is what the 10th Commandment is talking about.

If I were seeking free cosmetic surgery or any number of elective surgical/medical procedures for everyone then your "greed" argument would have some legs to stand on. But since that's not what I'm asking for and and not what the legislation at issue seeks to offer, I'd say you've created a lame, but exceptionally wordy, Straw Man arguement.

The level of health care being discussed won't even come close to leveling the playing field between the haves and the have nots, nor should it. A few wrinkles here and there don't alter my health status and I'm quite content to live with them.

Oh... Brad? Um... if you find the time you might try reading the Book of Acts. It's the one that comes after the Four Gospels in the New Testament. There you'll find that the Apostles practiced what was essentially socialism. Of course the fact that they knew Jesus personally doesn't necessarily mean that they understood the 10th Commandment as well as you seem to think you do.

Or maybe... just maybe they understood it and the preceeding 9 Commandments very well and knew that taking from the wealth of the few and distributing it to the many was in fact the opposite of greed. Which, if you think about it, makes a great deal of sense in the context of what Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler who wanted assurance of salvation - sell all your possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and follow Him.

Maybe Jesus didn't understand that 10th Commandment? Naw...

Response to Pat follows quotes (sorry, I'm not good at HTML)
Pat:"It's funny how doctrinaire Objectivists, who claim to pride themselves on their rational and honest argumentation, always wind up sounding like faith based reactionaries."

Me:I've been called a lot of things, but Objectivist?
If by that you mean that I believe that there is an objective and observable reality that is independent of variances in individual perception, compared to postmodernism, OK.
Faith based reactionary?
Am I faith based. I suppose so, if being a christian qualifies.
Reactionary? Yeah, I think this country would be much better off if the Constitution was adhered to, if that's what you mean.
Name calling is OK, but only if it is followed by some semblance of reasoned rebuttal or argument..oops, I know. "Objectivist" again.
I'll ask again, on what legal basis of authority (or even moral principle) does the government have the right to take money from an individual who earned it, in order to give it to another individual who didn't?
C'mon, it's not a tough question! Please someone answer. Anyone? You in the back there...
http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/11/09/not-yours-to-give/
The answer wouldn't be "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs" would it?

Pat:"When the US Constitution was written, people had access to pretty much the same healthcare across the board. Leeches and trepanning tools, are after all relatively low tech, and have about the same effectiveness whether deployed on Crispus Attucks or George Washington."

Me: And your point is? What? People were still buying and trading in goods and services then, just as they are today.
True enough, medicine is much more advanced now. So...?

Pat:"The insurance industry is one of the only industries in the US that has been exempted from the need to compete."

Me: Price is only one competitive measure. Insurance companies spend a lot of money advertising price+service, benefits etc.
The real question is, "why do Insurance companies exist?"
Do they exist to provide benefits to beneficiaries, or do they exist to make a profit, and maximize that profit to their shareholders?
BTW, if you're a shareholder, you think profit-good, loss-bad.

Pat:
""The McCarran-Ferguson Act is a truly astounding piece of legislation. The Act takes two
controversial steps:
1. it delegates the regulation of insurance entirely to the states without providing any
guidelines or standards for the states to meet and without mandating any continuing
oversight by GAO or other federal entities, and
2. it exempts insurance companies from antitrust law enforcement, except for acts involving
intimidation, coercion and boycott"

Me: I'm with you on this one, except that monopolies usually are short-lived, unless they happen to be government run programs.
Hey, I didn't advocate for or pass the McCarren-Ferguson Act, nor was I born when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed. All bad legislation, I suspect.
It seems that unintended consequences frequently arise from government regulation.
I'd really like to see the government monopolies on education, medicare, and socialist security get trust-busted too.
So... you think a new government monopoly is a good thing?
Are you in favor of monopolies or not?
Make up your mind.

Pat:"Then there's the FACT that there is no correlation between your favorite bugaboo "frivolous lawsuits" and the increase in Physician malpractice insurance premiums."

Me: Who am I to argue with your emphatic "FACT"s? Although it would be more useful if your FACT was accompanied by information, or at least some logical explanation.
Malpractice premiums have not gone up?
Malpractice awards have not similarly gone up?
Shyster ambulance-chasing fees have not gone up either?
There are many physicians whose malpractice premiums got high enough for them to go "bare" in order to be able to continue to provide their services, especially OBGYNS. Some doctors have simply given up delivering babies and gone into less risky fields of medicine.
The result is that if your wife is pregnant and you live in a remote rural area, you better have a fast car or a good mid-wife.

Pat:"But you Hair Club guys have managed to sell this meme to the public and to physicians themselves."

Me: I gotta say, Pat, this one has me stumped. I'm not affiliated with the Hair Club in any way, nor have I ever been a customer.
You seem to have some kind of beef with them, but like I said, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Really, whatever it is that you think I did, you're mistaken. I don't even think about the Hair Club.

Pat: "Health Care should indeed be a right, and until you get a clue about my right not to pour money into the latest Defense contractor's account in the Bahamas while his shareholders in government gin up another imaginary foreign policy crisis (for which we are borrowing around $10 billion per month from our grandchildren), I'll feel free to ignore your intellectually dishonest rants and specious comparisons of what's in the interest of the Common Good."

Me: You can ignore whatever you choose to, but it doesn't make it go away. You don't even need to explain why you believe my arguments are "intellectually dishonest" or "specious".

Ah, the old guns versus butter argument. This is a little OT, don't you think? But OK, here goes.
Defense competes with funds for feel-good. Am I right?
Provide for the common defense is a legitimate role of government, according to our constitution.
However, I find no clauses that provide for government run education, retirement (ss), health care, welfare, or any of the other myriad of unconstitutional programs.

If you want to argue the Iraq war is unconstitutional, along with Desert Storm, the war in Afghanistan, the Viet Nam war, the Korean War, et al, I would certainly agree with you to some extent. Clearly, a declaration of war is required, and this issue is quite worthy of debate.
But to call it Bush's war ignores the fact that both houses of Congress went along with him in what was very close to a declaration of war.

Most libs want to withdraw immediately from Bush's war. Whether or not we should have gone in in the first place is a moot point today. We are there and our choice is to win, or lose by forfeit. Either course of action carries risks and consequences.

Back to the main argument, at least from my point of view, is two very distinct and divergent paths. One path leads more towards a Marxist socialist state, with relatively few elitists making more and more decisions for us, and start to look more and more like a third world country in terms of lower standards of living and less freedom for the individual.

The other path, the one the founders fought for and envisioned for us in crafting our Constitution, leads us towards more liberty and prosperity.

The bad news about freedom is that we have the freedom to fail as much as we have the freedom to succeed.

If we get government run health care, that government will have tremendous power over our lives. The government will decide who gets health care and when, and at what level. Possibly with the ultimate decision over life and death.

Is it all that difficult to imagine that eventually the government bean counters and elitist's might determine that certain habits and behaviors by individuals increase the costs of health care and put a financial burden on the system?

We've already witnessed the war on tobacco users, and a lot of the rationale given for higher taxes and ordinances prohibiting people from smoking on private property is the increased burden smoking puts on health care resources.
It could be argued that these increased costs are offset by smoker's being less of a burden on the socialist security system because they kick the bucket before they can collect as many retirement benefits compared to non-smokers. I really don't know if this is true, or how much, but I think it's interesting to ponder.
How about fatty foods and obesity? Refined sugar and processed food consumption? How about banning rock climbing, sports activities, unprotected sex, motorcycle riding, and any of a plethora of other activities that might result in increased medical expenses from an individual.
Forget helmet laws, I can see an outright ban on motorcycles and other recreational vehicles deemed risky... it's all for your own good, and the good of all.

Did you know that the US postal service has just removed wall clocks from post offices, so people waiting in line will "focus more on their postal service experience, and less on time"?

I wonder if they'll have clocks (or calendars) in government run clinics and hospitals.

Response to Kevin:

Kevin:
"I'm not sure that Jesus would agree with your contention that wanting my kids to be healthy and recieve competent medical care is what the 10th Commandment is talking about."

Me:
Well sort of. Wanting your kids to be healthy is a good thing.
It has more to do with how you obtain the funds needed for health care, and the justification used to obtain it.
The tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet..." has to do with wanting something that doesn't belong to you.
In the context of this socialized health care discussion, it means just what the premise of govt health care says, "I have a right to compel that guy over there to pay for my kids healthcare". "he's got more money and stuff than he needs and I/my kids need it" and so it's OK to take it by force.
So using the full force of the government to provide you with something you want, or want for your kids, by taking it from someone it legitimately belongs to, really falls more into the realm of the eight commandment: Thou shall not steal.
Even though the government is stealing or compelling taxpayers on your behalf, stealing is stealing. Asking though, is OK,
The class warfare rhetoric and propaganda of the left is more akin to promoting coveting, which then justifies theft.
Having said that, people with means in excess of their needs should of course be encouraged (but not coerced) to help anyone in need, whether it's health care expenses, shelter, food, or any type of problem. Love thy neighbor. Right?
I happen to believe that voluntary charity is better for all, and that as a practical matter, direct giving or giving to a private charity is much more efficient in getting the most benefit out of the resources given.
The American people are incredibly generous, largely because our capitalistic system and free markets generally provide people with the means with which they can be generous.

I am sorry that you think my arguments are lame. This hurts my feelings, and I've spent far too much time trying to explain a different way of viewing things, to get back answers that don't address my points.

I strongly believe that Marx, and Lenin, and Castro went down the wrong path. Our freedoms and liberty are rare in this world, and it is no accident that we have prospered when other countries haven't.

Provide for the common defense is a legitimate role of government, according to our constitution.
However, I find no clauses that provide for government run education, retirement (ss), health care, welfare, or any of the other myriad of unconstitutional programs.

This is the problem with conservatives. Y'all are afraid of the future. That's why you continually seek to revert back to the mythic good old days.

Guess what... you won't find a clause providing for women to vote because back in the good old days women couldn't vote. In fact, husbands could beat their wifes when, where and why they wished, with few exceptions, back in the good old days. Slaves could be beaten to death, sold, raped and worse back in the good old days. Native Americans could be slaughtered, tortured, abused, cheated and inflicted with any manner of other inhumane treatments back in the good old days.

It must really suck to be a conservative these days. You can't beat your wife and her vote can, and probably will, cancel out yours. Heck, you can't even kick your dog and get away with it. And now poor people might actually get some basic health care with which to relieve their suffering. Whatever will you do for fun then?

Welcome to the 21st Century!

I strongly believe that Marx, and Lenin, and Castro went down the wrong path.

So do I

What's your point? That the opposite extreme (which you've been peddling here) is the only reasonable alternative to the path of Marx, Lenin and Castro? That anything which doesn't adhere to your knee-jerk Conservative extremism is therefore Marxism in disguise?

I'll ask again, on what legal basis of authority (or even moral principle) does the government have the right to take money from an individual who earned it, in order to give it to another individual who didn't?.........The answer wouldn't be "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs" would it?

Nah, not a big fan of the Manifesto, as it's never been proven to work for very long. Communism, like Libertarianism always winds up at dictatorship. Kevin mentioned the early Christians' proto-socialism (holding all things in common) and that one didn't last over a decade or two either, before it got turned into tithing a form of tax on the faithful to support Peter, James, John and the other leadership guys in Jerusalem.

I'd say for the legal precedent we start with the US Constitution, Article 1 section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;......

The bottom line for me is that the US government was designed to promote the general welfare of the citizens, while leaving the individual as unconstrained as possible to engage in commerce, "pursuit of happiness", etcetera.

People of good will can and should debate how best to accomplish this, but there are plenty of "rights" that got left out back in the 18th century, and the founders knew this and expected and provided for updates if for example it was later decided that:

Blacks are actually human beings instead of 2/5ths of a human being or;

Women were property and hence had no property or self-determination rights, and so on.

I'm not speaking for the campaign, because I'm just a supporter, but I think that a healthy population is a baseline measure for an even starting point for all citizens.

Response to Kevin 2 re: Acts

Kevin: "Oh... Brad? Um... if you find the time you might try reading the Book of Acts. It's the one that comes after the Four Gospels in the New Testament. There you'll find that the Apostles practiced what was essentially socialism. Of course the fact that they knew Jesus personally doesn't necessarily mean that they understood the 10th Commandment as well as you seem to think you do"

me: I assume you're referring to Acts 4:32 where the believers share their possessions.
I reread it just to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
I really don't see any similarity between this and Marxism/socialism.
People shared what they had to make sure needs were met VOLUNTARILY. They didn't go out to the neighborhood to pilfer, redistribute the booty, and then accept the gratitude and enhanced power and status from the recipients.
Do you see any difference? I do.
I didn't read where anyone claimed a right to another's possessions. They shared freely from what they had to give.
Unless, of course your making the state equivalent to God in authority. You aren't, are you?
This is very admirable and biblical, but is still not the state- compelled giving and redistribution that you advocate.
I hope you spent as much attention on the rest of Acts as you did in this one small section.
The Tenth: What part of "don't covet" is giving you trouble?
Do you not see how politicians covet taxes so they can trade it for good will and power from the recipients (voters)?

Kevin: "Or maybe... just maybe they understood it and the preceeding 9 Commandments very well and knew that taking from the wealth of the few and distributing it to the many was in fact the opposite of greed."

Me: Remember who Robin Hood was robbing in Sherwood Forest?
It wasn't from the wealthier merchants, it was from the tax collecting Lords. Kinder like a rebate.

They didn't "take" anything. They asked, and it was freely and voluntarily given. You really can't see this important distinction, can you.

Kevin: "Which, if you think about it, makes a great deal of sense in the context of what Jesus told the Rich Young Ruler who wanted assurance of salvation - sell all your possessions, give the proceeds to the poor and follow Him. "

Me:
And if the man had sold all of his possessions and given them away, then he's "in"? Do you really think a person can buy his salvation? I think Luther put this heresy to rest a long time ago.

On Mark 10:13-29 and Luke 18:18-30, The rich young man.
This is one of my favorite stories.
It contains an important message, but one that I think escapes you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you taking away from the rich young man, the notion that we must give away all our possessions and join some collective in order to become a disciple of Christ.
Are you further extrapolating this out to mean that socialist governments please God, and that this is what Jesus would want?

I've seen bumper stickers that say "Jesus was not a Republican", and "Jesus was a Liberal".
The first one was true, Jesus doesn't have an R or D associated with himself, and was as about disinterested in politics as he could be.
His teachings on the other hand, and the wisdom contained in the rest of the Bible, are of great value to everyone, including politicians, in that they can help guide us in making decisions that glorify Him, not us. Using the Bible to satiate political ambition is perverse, and twisting scriptures is heresy.

His mission was not to instruct people on how to throw off the oppression of Rome, although even then, that is what people mistakingly believed. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars" was his answer. Jesus was apolitical.

Jesus instead came to earth to save mankind from sin by calling us to repent and put our trust in Jesus for our redemption and eternal life. His death on the cross took our penalty for sin, and his resurrection is the promise of eternal life for us with him.

Jesus was interested in our hearts or minds, our eternal souls, not in flesh and materialism.

In the story of the young man, it's important to begin at the beginning in order to understand the message:

Mk: 10:17
17: As jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees. "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good- except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not STEAL, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

(This is a setup. Jesus knows everything about this young man, just as he did the woman at the well. He also knows what is keeping this man from salvation)
("good" as used in the Bible, is not a relative term, but refers to holiness and righteousness that man became incapable of after the fall of Adam, and none of us are capable of keeping His commandments perfectly).
(Are you a "good" person?)

20:" Teacher," he declared, "all of these I have kept since I was a boy."

(without realizing it, the young man has just broken the 9th. Because of our sinful nature, none of us keep the commandments.)
Mt: 5: 21-22, 5:27-30, No one is righteous Rom 3: 9-20
(We attempt to earn our salvation, or justify ourselves in self-righteousness, which exposes our sin of pride)
(the self-made, self-reliant man has the most difficult task in humbling himself before God, and trusting in Him alone).
James 4:6 and 1Peter 5:5 referring to Proverbs 3:34
"God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble"

Back to Mark and the rich young man:
Mk:10:21 "Jesus looked at him, and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go and sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me".
At this, the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
( I believe Kevin and others use this and other scriptures to justify the idea of instituting a socialist/communist system that seeks to confiscate wealth from one group and redistribute it to others. This is a gross misinterpretation of this story)
(the young man was showing that he loved money more than God, and that his self-righteousness would save him. Wrongo.)
(the young man was idolatrous, and unrepentant in his unwillingness to put God first in his life).
People put many things ahead of God in pursuing their fleshly desires: money, sex, power, etc.
This story also illustrates that great wealth is not necessarily a blessing (nor is power).
I believe Kevin is viewing this passage in materialistic terms, and misusing it to somehow justify the liberal/progressive agenda, which is as much a perversion as those groups who misuse Mk:29-30 to preach the "prosperity gospel" (look it up).
Both are missing the true meaning in this story.

God loves us and has provided a way for us to overcome our sinful condition through Jesus Christ. We can't earn it (works righteousness). It is a free gift to all who are born again by confessing in and repentance of sin, and trusting in Jesus alone.

God is a god of love, but he is also a wrath-filled god.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9)

It is appointed for man to die once, and then judgement.
This means heaven or hell.
Jesus provided a way for us to spend eternity with Him.

Giving freely to those in need (without expectation of reward) is good.
Taking by force from one, and giving to another is theft.
Lust for power and control is idolatrous, and quite contrary to the Founder's ideals of liberty and freedom, I believe.

Posted by Kevin at February 18, 2008 7:48 PM
Brad:I strongly believe that Marx, and Lenin, and Castro went down the wrong path.

Kevin:So do I

What's your point? That the opposite extreme (which you've been peddling here) is the only reasonable alternative to the path of Marx, Lenin and Castro? That anything which doesn't adhere to your knee-jerk Conservative extremism is therefore Marxism in disguise?

Brad:
The point is, that you libs believe that adhering to the Constitution is "extremist".
Think about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you taking away from the rich young man, the notion that we must give away all our possessions and join some collective in order to become a disciple of Christ.

You're wrong. But I'll chalk that up to the blinders cutting off the flow of oxygen.

Are you further extrapolating this out to mean that socialist governments please God, and that this is what Jesus would want?

WOW!!!!!! Okay, set down the Kool-Aid. Scroll up. See where I agreed that Marx, Lenin and Castro went down the wrong path? What part of it confuses you?

The point is, that you libs believe that adhering to the Constitution is "extremist".
Think about it.

ROFL

And that has what to do with Marx, Lenin and Castro? You would have been just as coherent if you'd responded with instructions on how to polish shoes or what the price of tea is in China.

And you were complaining about your points not being addressed? I don't think you know what your points even are, much less able to recognize whether they've been addressed or not.

Response to Kevin:

Kevin:
"This is the problem with conservatives. Y'all are afraid of the future. That's why you continually seek to revert back to the mythic good old days.

Guess what... you won't find a clause providing for women to vote because back in the good old days women couldn't vote. In fact, husbands could beat their wifes when, where and why they wished, with few exceptions, back in the good old days. Slaves could be beaten to death, sold, raped and worse back in the good old days. Native Americans could be slaughtered, tortured, abused, cheated and inflicted with any manner of other inhumane treatments back in the good old days.

It must really suck to be a conservative these days. You can't beat your wife and her vote can, and probably will, cancel out yours. Heck, you can't even kick your dog and get away with it. And now poor people might actually get some basic health care with which to relieve their suffering. Whatever will you do for fun then?

Welcome to the 21st Century!"

I do have hope for the future, but my confidence in your ability to have a civil discourse is gone.

Yes, I do believe in hope for the future... and hope for change...for the hopeful, changing future.
(Oops. Now I'm plagiarizing).

And you were complaining about your points not being addressed? I don't think you know what your points even are, much less able to recognize whether they've been addressed or not.

You're evidently unteachable.
Not my fault.
I give up.

Brad,

I used to be a card-carrying conservative Republican. You've said nothing which I haven't seen many times over throughout the years and once (mis)believed to be the truth.

Kevin: "I used to be a card-carrying conservative Republican. You've said nothing which I haven't seen many times over throughout the years and once (mis)believed to be the truth."

True conservatives never abandon their core values because they are based on immutable truths, coupled with a thorough understanding of free-market economics.
To put it another way, people who abandon a belief in free market capitalism in favor of coercive taxation/government redistribution lack either an understanding of economics, and/or reject the morality of non-coercive commerce.

Many atheist and agnostics claim that they were once christians too. They were false converts, as are, I believe, many who still think of themselves as christians.

In the same way (without the spiritual component), someone who claims that they were once conservative, but now are liberal, never really fully understood conservatism in the first place. They were false converts.

For example, Bush has never been a conservative. This was evidenced by the way he pitched himself as a "compassionate conservative".
This drove those of us who are philosophically conservative nuts! "Compassionate conservatism" presumed that conservatism is hard-hearted, and needed a dose of socialism to make it less so (prescription drug plan, McCain/Kennedy, etc).
Conservatism is compassionate because it promotes individual freedom and liberty, protecting the individual from economic bondage by a do-good government and the raft of politicians and bureaucrats and government employees who are the biggest beneficiaries of government programs.

Free-market capitalism, and individual liberty is the reason this country enjoys the highest standard of living in the world.
Liberals would like us to believe that it is because we are better at exploiting labor than the rest of the world, or that the US has more natural resources to exploit in ruining the environment.

People who are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor are motivated to take risks, work hard, and utilize their individual talents to better themselves. The economic growth and resultant productivity are beneficial to all who have the ability to participate in it. Those who can't (not "won't") are cared for to the extent that those of us who want to help them do help. I believe this should be voluntary and free of compulsion by the government.

High taxation, onerous regulation, and other government disincentives remove this motivation incrementally, and turns the focus of energy by individuals and business towards tax avoidance. If the government coffers go into the red, the reaction is to believe that taxes must not be high enough, and that they are not quite at a "fair" level.

The theory behind the liberal, progressive tax system, is that our politicians are better at determining what is fair than citizens are. Coincidentally, these politicians garner more power and prestige to themselves in the process, taking credit for their generosity and compassion when the cost to themselves is zero.
Because politicians are free to determine "fairness" and what is good for one group at the expense of another, tremendous opportunities and temptations for graft and corruption exist.

Most politicians are smart enough to not accept bribes in the form of cold cash (in the freezer), or cattle futures deals. Instead they content themselves with indirect bribery in the form of favors, subsidies, trade and tax policy, and wage/labor law in exchange for votes or, in the case of John Murhta/Abscam, favors in the district for political support first...cash later.

I'm not saying that only Democrats are corrupt. Sadly, all politicians pander, just to different groups. This is not sound government.

Because, even in my view, and the view of the founders, a weak central government has less power to corrupt, and therefore less ability to afflict individuals economically and other wise, I am a conservative.

The most puzzling aspect of liberalism to me is that, on the one hand they complain about government corruption and intrusion into the private lives of citizens in many areas, they trust that same government to do what is right and fair in other ways.
This translates into putting faith in a government to wrest power from the people to make decisions and choices for untrustworthy individual citizens, while ignoring the fact that politicians themselves have the same foibles and human frailties that the ruled possess.

Do you trust yourself, or do you trust your government?
Who do you want to have control over your life?