Adventist Online

I find it hard to believe that not a single Adventist is decrying the reign of Steve Bannon. His prescription for the world takes a page out of the SDA eschatology playbook, and I am waiting for the outcry that He is prophetic evidence for Christian global supremacy. Bannon is Catholic, and has been advocating for a Gobal Christian war to cleanse the earth. He is an opponent to the current Pope and has been pushing the Vatican to take a more militant approach to defeating Islam and secularism.  He calls this war a 4th cleansing which is necessary to keep Christianity as the major force in the world. Why are the SDA voices so silent on this issue.

 

Views: 1864

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not what I said. I said, "And I believe that it is impossible to devise a system, compatible with liberty, in which no one is without health care."

Because the rest of the industrialized nations do not have our Constitution. European nations come from a history of their people being "subjects", bound to obey their "rulers". We have no such history. One cannot have a system of universal health care without coercion, just as one cannot have socialism without coercion. I am against governmental coercion. Are you for it or against it?

Are you against Social Security or Medicare?  Are you going to take them when you are eligible?  Even my Republican father took them and railed against the government "entitlements" as he was doing so.  He also took all his veterans benefits too.  When it comes to money, I notice conservatives have a lack of playing by their own rules.  Do you want everyone to pay someone else's insurance when they show up at the hospital or would you prefer that they were required to have insurance?  You think auto drivers ought to have insurance?

With respect to both Social Security and Medicare, both programs were started with the idea that these were not government benefits - that they were enforced, required programs that YOU PAID INTO, and when you retired, YOU RECIEVED your own investment back.  They are both contractual obligations, not entitlements.  It is only since the Democrats and Republicans began dipping into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and replacing those funds with IOUs, that it has transitioned into welfare programs.  And officially, the government still puts out a statement that shows how much you have invested with them and what your payout is.  So it is not dipping into a socialistic program when I take Medicare or Social Security - it is getting my own money back, per the terms of the original agreement between the government and me. 

With respect to the VA - it is again an agreement between me and the government, because both I and your father agreed to put our lives on the line, take less pay than we could have made, and spend years of our lives defending this country.  In exchange for that, the government made certain agreements with us, including the VA agreements.  I'm sorry that you seem to feel that veterans are not worth honoring the governmental agreements that were made with them. 

This is COMPLETELY "playing by our own rules".  Agreements were made, commitments honored, work was performed, money was invested.  What I object to is "entitlements" - money that is transferred from other people to folks who don't put in any kind of investment. 

I think it is stupid for someone not to have car insurance, and if they get in an accident, and they are sued into bankruptcy because of that stupidity, it is their own ignorance that caused it.  At no time have I thought that I should pay for their car insurance to forstall the results of their own stupidity.  I'll bet you haven't either. 

If someone shows up at the hospital without insurance, there has always been some degree of charity care that all hospitals and physicians have given, based on the degree of indigency of the patient.  If someone comes in, however, who could have paid for insurance, and they simply chose not to, I am fine with them going into bankruptcy for it.  It is their own stupidity.  I certainly don't think that the government has any business mandating that someone purchase a product.  That is coercion.  Again, are you for or against coercion? 

Are you okay with government telling you what to buy or not buy?  Even the Supreme Court avoided that issue.  They did not rule on the idea that government could mandate buying something by transforming the penalty into a "tax" in their minds. 

I find it interesting when Adventists, who historically have been against government inserting itself into the lives of the citizens in terms of how they should worship, are okay with the government inserting itself into the lives of the citizens with respect to other freedoms.  They cannot see that if the government has the power to do the one, it has the power to do the other.  Your being okay with this government insertion into private decisions is paving the way to the Sunday laws.

Well, when you receive your money that you paid into Social Security, are you going to forgo the rest?  I think not.  As for my father, yes, he volunteered.  However, it was during the years of the draft so many were taken against their will, trained, and shipped off to die in foreign lands.  And you know how many times the government breaks enlistment promises?  However, you still have to perform and enlist no matter how much "bad faith" they show.

Private companies slip out of contracts every day, so don't expect a government to honor a contract forever.

Well, regarding "when you receive the money that you paid into Social Security, will you forgo the rest?  I think not."

First, it was sold that it was an INVESTMENT account, that just like private pension funds, it would be invested, and would be expected to create a return, so it is fair and noble to expect to get more from this particular investment account than what I put into it.  No?  It is a forced investment account, but the Social Security Administration makes no bones about it being such.  And historically, what has been the return?  Much poorer than has been the case, historically, from privately-funded investment accounts.  I've heard 2%.  You'd fire an investment manager who only made you 2% over your lifetime than your contributions.  So not only is it an investment with expected returns, but it is a FORCED POOR INVESTMENT.  So yes, I will accept each and every nickel from Social Security, because I have earned it, and more. 

And as to whether the government should honor this particular contract with millions of hard-working people:  is there any doubt that the answer to that would be "yes"?  Can you look at yourself in the mirror and say "maybe"?  Can you be a Christian and not believe that promises should be honored?  Should bad behavior on the part of some people with their contracts be used as an excuse for exhibiting one's own bad behavior?  I would expect that a Reverend Doctor would have a clear understanding of the correct answers to those questions.

By the way, I volunteered, too.

I would hope that someone with a doctorate would have some knowledge of history and economics.  No, it's an insurance program and where do you think the money is invested?  Not the stock market.  Government bonds so 2% per year over the life of your account is actually quite good.  Of course, I run my private accounts over 20% yearly.  Of course, I have no conservative principles to preserve, so I tap as much as possible.

David, while Social Security legislation uses the term "insurance", it was not what we think of as "insurance" at all. From the Social Security website under "history":

"Although the definition of social insurance can vary considerably in its particulars, its basic features are: the insurance principle under which a group of persons are "insured" in some way against a defined risk, and a social element which usually means that the program is shaped in part by broader social objectives, rather than being shaped solely by the self-interest of the individual participants. Social insurance coverage can be provided for a number of different types of insured conditions, from disability and death to old-age or unemployment. We may find it obvious to think of death, disability or unemployment as conditions causing loss of income and which can be ameliorated by pooling of risk. It is at first a little odd to think of old-age or retirement in these same terms. But that is precisely how the early social insurance theorists conceived of retirement, as producing a loss of income due to cessation of work activity."

It was a novel concept, but under that concept, all pensions are "insurance". This was clearly a forced retirement fund, so my point stands. And I don't appreciate the backhanded "I would think that someone with a doctorate" slam. I haven't used that sort of tactic with you. Please don't sink to using insults here.

Really?  Then what was that Rev. Doctor crack a while back?  As far as insurance, yes, both the society and the individual benefit.  However, that works with life insurance too.  What you are doing is lessening risk, and when individuals do that in old age, they are less dependent (so the theory goes) on society.

Well, I am embarrassed.  You are right about the "reverend doctor crack", and I apologize.  I didn't remember doing that (even though it was right there), and I shouldn't.

Apology accepted.  I think we can both agree that the American public got a raw deal when they were presented with these two candidates for the office of president.  And the ACA was a very ugly law with many crippling amendments.  Mostly I was disappointed that the Republicans could not put aside their partisan decision not to work with President Obama and make the bill into a well-thought out piece of legislation.

To me, the problem with the ACA wasn't just partisan, it was Constitutional. I believe that governmental control of health care is unconstitutional. And I believe that no matter what Supreme Court, president, Party, or Congress says (they have all been wrong at times). I believe that the Tenth Amendment should have stopped them. Given that, a decision by a principled Conservative who believes as I do would have not allowed an engagement in the law. Any more than a proposal to reinstate slavery should generate anything approaching compromise from principled Congressmen and Senators.

I was reminded of a post I heard the other day: "A turd was dropped into the punch. All the discussion today is about the size and shape of the turd. At the end of the discussion, and when agreements are reached and laws written, will come the invitation to all, 'Drink up!'" Do you see what I mean? I think it is immoral to engage in discussions about the size and shape.

Wouldn't health care be constitutional under that part about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,"  especially the pursuit of happiness?  Or is that in the declaration, not the constitution?  I don't see how you can enjoy freedom and pursuit the American dream without good health care.  While it does not mention it specially in the Constitution, wouldn't those powers be inherit in the "commerce clause?"

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2020   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service