Why do Republicans and born-again Christians hate the poor?

Why do Republicans in general and born-again Christians in particular hate poor people?

After all if you check the statistics you find that poor people in the United States take a minute share of the wealth while contributing their endless grinding labor to all the jobs the rest of us don’t or will not accomplish.

It’s bad enough they live difficult lives, but the “can’t wait to get in your face about Jesus” right wing seem to believe the Republic will only survive if the poor have no healthcare coverage.

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and slobbering Fox News Republican cheerleader, could have taken up any cause. He chose to represent the cabals assembled to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has come to be known as Obamacare.

[Recently] Dave Richardson had a very nice tome on the subtle differences between “provide” and “promote.” Of course if he had really wanted to look into it, he would have known the drafting committee of the Constitutional Convention didn’t even want a preamble but Governeur Morris wrote one anyway.

The convention itself spent zero time discussing the differences among “provide,” “promote,” “protect,” and “ensure,” but 225 years later Dave thinks he’s found a crack into which he can insert his free market theology.

So why do the Born Agains need to oppose healthcare for the poor? Why don’t Republicans take up in favor of a system whereby everyone can obtain healthcare without going hat in hand to the Real Life Center in Tyrone where they probably don’t do heart transplants or dialysis?

Well, first of all, the one group is tied mindlessly to the other. And for the other, the answer, and you will find this all through the Founder’s thinking, is moneyed interests.

Right now we have 50 million Americans who are not insured for healthcare. If they are injured or become ill, they must pay out of pocket for the healthcare provided. Fair enough, you say?

One trip to the emergency room will convince you that costs there are out of reach for most middle Americans, much less the poor.

Ah, but the law says anyone going to an emergency room must be treated. They are and the hospital is left with a shortfall. So who picks up that shortfall? The rest of us with healthcare coverage.

My employer pays vast amounts to insure its employees (and indirectly the uninsured). I also have a large deductible, and while I can afford it, I am left wondering who profits from all this?

Hopefully the doctor. He has worked very hard to get where he is and while doctors make good money, they aren’t taking 20 percent of the nation’s wealth.

Well, how about insurers, drug makers, administrators, salesmen, billing agents, attorneys, managers, billing staff, and a hundred other professions not actively involved in actually producing healthcare for the patient.

A couple of years ago my brother-in-law was injured by a train in Berlin. The care he received was equal to or better than any hospital in the United States. He was in critical care for a month, and in the hospital for three months.

When he left there was no bill, no follow up bill collector, no mountain of crap coming from insurers, doctors, pharmacies, and hospital billing. There was nothing but a caring staff wishing him well.

Remember all that stuff we were fed about “death committees” and rationed care? The patient in the bed next to my brother-in-law was catatonic. The nurses treated her with amazing tenderness and we were curious about her prognosis. They would say nothing except, It is very sad. Yet she was kept there on life support for weeks as her mother visited every day simply hoping. No one was in a hurry to pull the plug and she was still there when we left.

Obviously this care was not free. The German people decided long ago that healthcare is a human right and they have found a way to provide it for all, even for visitors.

So we in the U.S. spend twice as much per capita to provide healthcare for five-sixths of our people while Germany spends half as much to insure all her people. For our troubles our nation has a shorter life expectancy and a greater infant mortality.

“Obamacare” was the result of vastly watering down the President’s original plan and it ended up looking very like Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts and the one advanced by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Getting back to Dave Richardson’s article, which mirrors other conservative Christian approaches, it is long on dogma and profoundly short on practical reality.

Rather than finding ways to help at least the children of the poor of whom Jesus spoke a great deal, he invites them to share in the free-wheeling cornucopia of our capitalist system. To do so they can find some Christian charity and learn how to fish.

Except there aren’t enough Christian charities and they don’t have the resources or expertise or centralized structure to substantially help the poor on a national level.

Meanwhile our healthcare costs continue to spiral while the actual results continue to deteriorate.

However, while the people who ought most to be on the side of the poor, our conservative Christian friends, are the ones seeking most actively to ensure they remain without healthcare, we will continue to be mired in dogma and polemics and the children of the poor, the most innocent and defenseless, remain without health coverage.

And, no, I don’t really believe born again Christians hate the poor. They are insensitive to the actualities of the poor.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.

Rick Viall
Rick Viall's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Mr. Parker

It is important to this conservative Christian to actually make a difference. Obamacare "fixes" all manor of things that are not broken. Whenever I point out to a liberal/progressive that a particular effort or program did not even come close to helping as billed they shrug and say "Well I cared." Sorry, but that is not good enough.

Further, all this deficit spending in the name of compassion is only igniting inflation which is the most regressive of taxes one could ever conceive.

Rick Viall
Rick Viall's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2005
Hit save twice. Please save

Hit save twice. Please save this technically inept soul.

patkebb
patkebb's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/22/2012
Rick Viall - technical or technological

I suppose you mean "technologically" inept soul. Maybe you should add "inept speller" also. JK. Got a good laugh.

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
Repeal Obamacare Jan 21, 2013

Obama-care is not about healthcare, it is about taxes.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Taxes

. . is about providing services for citizens that they can't provide individually for themselves at a reasonable cost. Most citizens today cannot afford to pay for their health care without adequate insurance. Most citizens cannot maintain the road leading to their homes without assistance from services provided by 'taxes'. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much taxation? Sure. Inadequate services from the funds provided for taxes? Sure. What is your representative in Congress doing about that? Is she/he working for you or for the corporation/lobbyist that paid for their re-election campaign?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
acapella

Medicare

Quote:

Medicare is a national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government since 1965, that guarantees access to health insurance for Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities as well as people with end stage renal disease. As a social insurance program, Medicare spreads the financial risk associated with illness across society to protect everyone, and thus has a somewhat different social role from private insurers, which must manage their risk portfolio to guarantee their own solvency

Medicaid

Quote:

Medicaid is the United States health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states.[1] People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.

acapella
acapella's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2008
Ridiculous emotional outburst

This is ridiculous drivel that only regurgitates emotion-based, left-wing talking points with absolutely no fact-based sources. Anyone can spew out a screed like this without thinking, but it takes a serious person to actually have arguments based on reason and logic.

Here are some actual facts for you with source material that refute your opinion: http://news.investors.com/article/619306/201207250802/obamacare-could-ad...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
American Health Care

There are born- again Christians and Republicans who may have read this - and don't feel dirtier because they realize it does not apply to them. At the end of the article, the author stated that he doesn't believe the statement in his title - but he did raise some points that people need to discuss regardless of ideology. A couple went to a showing of a popular movie in Aurora, Colorado. A tragedy occurred; the man received a bullet in the head and is in critical condition. The woman, his wife, delivered their son this week. The family is in the hospital. They have no health insurance. Under the Affordable Health Care Act - they probably would have had insurance that they could afford. Their health services that they received will be paid for out of taxpayer dollars. (We do not withhold care in a crisis situation like this) Too many of our citizens are not receiving preventative health care. A healthier citizenry will mean less need of HEALTH CARE. Personally I feel we have focused too much on the almighty tax dollar instead of fraud, corruption, and other aspects of poor use of the tax dollar. The proper use of our taxes can assist us in maintaining a strong and healthy country. Left wing talking points? Shouldn't all Americans discuss the health care in our country? Too bad we have a 'right wing' response. Just because it was advertised that the law-makers didn't read the act doesn't mean that those who are truly concerned should not be aware of what is in the act and how it will affect them and their family.

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
Please read the law-taxes and more taxes hidden in the vast law

The Affordable Care Act is a feel good name but the reality is increased taxes. And yes, you are correct that fraud, corruption and misuse of our tax dollars has been rampant. This law will do nothing to correct the fraud and abuse, it will simply allow for additional opportunities to create more fraud and abuse of "We, The People's Money". It is about taxation!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Health Care Discussion
Quote:

Too many of our citizens are not receiving preventative health care. A healthier citizenry will mean less need of HEALTH CARE.

I too think that preventative care is the key. And I don't think the answer has to be so complicated as the Government wants to make it. The key is the county health clinics. Right now they are too understaffed. We could help that by allowing medical students (doctors and nurses) to work off student loan debt by working there. In fact if they couldn't re-pay the loan they should be required to work there. I'd place a small "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco to help fund them and charge a flat co-pay of say $10 for the uninsured. This (co-pay) could be waived for people that make less that a certain amount. They could also take the Medicaid/care patients that can't find private doctors. Maybe even offer Medicare to people with pre existing conditions at rates based on income. The answers aren't that complicated once you remove political greed.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude

Good points. We're paying a lot of 'leaders' in Washington to sit down and figure this out - and that is such a waste of taxpayers money. I bet if your ideas were put on paper along with an economists' input - this could work !

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Parker is an ideological lightweight Dm

and not to be taken seriously.. Like most progressives he believes Government should be responsible for our welfare.

Sound familiar?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
SLindsey Says Parker is a lightweight

and he proves it with disparaging remarks about Mike Huckabee,an intelligent person with extensive executive experience who is also an ordained minister, all things that are perhaps anathema to Mr. Parker, and all of which do not apply to our current POTUS.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Please continue to share with us your informed view of how government should be involved or not involved in the health care of our citizens. Medicare has been a government program for Americans since 1965. How would you change that?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
How about unleashing the Free Market?

Why do you think we cannot shop insurance across State lines Dm? Who has put those restrictions on us?

Your precious Government DM that's who.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Do more research. Some comments from other discussions

Quotes from Newsobservor.com

Quote:

States have regulated health insurance since the 1945 passage of the McCarran Ferguson Act, which, among other things, forbids interstate sale of insurance (health, auto, homeowners). States have regulated insurance ever since. Many insurance companies sell policies in different states but, in doing so, must comply with a given state's regulations. For example, I have car insurance from the same company as my dad who lives in Georgia

.

Quote:

But individuals are prevented from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Allowing them to do so would require a federal law that replaces state regulation of insurance with federal regulation. This is an odd policy prescription for Republicans to champion, because they tend to reject federal regulation in favor of state autonomy.

Quote:

Some already purchase health insurance across state lines. The ERISA Act of 1974 allows businesses that self-insure their employees to include all employees in one health insurance pool, even if they live in different states. Self-insurance means that the company is responsible for paying the health expenditures of its employees after the employees have paid the specified deductibles and co-pays. Such companies typically hire an insurance company to process claims and are predominantly large employers who have chosen to self-insure to remove the insurance middleman.

I am covered by health insurance based in California. I understand your confusion, for the simplistic plea of the right is not based on all of the facts.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM re-read that very first quote...

"States have regulated health insurance since the 1945 passage of the McCarran Ferguson Act, which, among other things, forbids interstate sale of insurance (health, auto, homeowners). States have regulated insurance ever since. Many insurance companies sell policies in different states but, in doing so, must comply with a given state's regulations. For example, I have car insurance from the same company as my dad who lives in Georgia"

But yet you glossed right over the fact that the Insurance Company HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATES REGULATIONS...including their own State.

Let me ask you a simple question.... Can you pickup the phone call Liberty Insurance in say Nebraska and get a quote and buy a policy?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Sometimes you have to read SL

. . More than the first sentence. Geez.

Quote:

Quote:
Some already purchase health insurance across state lines. The ERISA Act of 1974 allows businesses that self-insure their employees to include all employees in one health insurance pool, even if they live in different states. Self-insurance means that the company is responsible for paying the health expenditures of its employees after the employees have paid the specified deductibles and co-pays. Such companies typically hire an insurance company to process claims and are predominantly large employers who have chosen to self-insure to remove the insurance middleman

.

As was stated in my post:

But individuals are prevented from purchasing health insurance across state lines. Allowing them to do so would require a federal law that replaces state regulation of insurance with federal regulation. This is an odd policy prescription for Republicans to champion, because they tend to reject federal regulation in favor of state autonomy.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
*

*

acapella
acapella's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2008
Re: David's Mom

I'm sorry, but the author does believe what he said. It is oozing from every sentence of his opinion. He just throws that last thought in there to try to convince you he's really a reasonable guy. If you read the link that I referenced, there are actual facts that tell us that Obamacare will not do what you want it to do and will be disastrous for this country. Just because you want all people to have health insurance does not mean Obamacare is good policy and in the best interests of all Americans. I want all people to have the health insurance policy that fits their needs too, but this isn't the way to do it.

And if you want anecdotes, I have my own. My husband is on Medicare. He cannot find a psychiatrist to take him because the ones we've talked to so far don't accept Medicare. Plus his Medicare Advantage carrier won't approve a medication that is recommended by one of his doctors and has worked form him very well in the past. What recourse do we have? We can't sue the government. We can't go to another insurance company. Not only that, the one psychiatrist that he saw before getting on Medicare now is telling us he's a new patient and we have to pay $300 for a first office visit. She doesn't take Medicare. This will only get worse the more Obamacare is implemented. You know something else, my husband was told by federal employees that we should get a divorce so that he can get more services designed to go to poor people and not have to pay as much taxes. That's flat out immoral. I wish to hell he wasn't on Medicare, but the government in it's infinite wisdom that it knows best for our lives, would take away his social security.

jmatute
jmatute's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/23/2005
Reply to acapella

Medicare was not designed to resolve all health issue problems that are possible in treating the ailments of the human condition as we age. It was, however, created to present Americans with a health program that would provide an adequate response to obtain health care. It is also there to prevent someone from going into bankruptcy as a result of a serious medical issue. It has been doing this for over 50 years, and it is a very popular and effective program. The question you leave in mind is....what would you do if you did NOT have Medicare? The Affordable Care Act is a program that allows millions who do not have anything, to get something. The Medley family in Aurora, Colorado currently face an estimated $2 Million hardship - just because they were watching a movie. Mrs.Medley just had a baby, and Mr. Medley took a bullet in the head and has lost an eye, and his recovery will be long and difficult. I'll bet you anything that the Medley's would love to have the Medicare program that you have, the one that you wish you did not have, and have nothing but complaints about. What would you have or do if you were in the same situation as the Medley's? I think if you were to understand what exactly the Affordable Care Act brings to the table, you and others may think a bit clearer on the issue instead of getting caught up in the political rants whipped up: http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exact...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
A better source then reddit...

http://blog.debate.org/2012/06/29/the-pros-and-cons-of-obamacare-a-simpl...

but let's don't forget the new taxes on us all.

http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/obamacare-taxes/2011/01/14/id/382849

This is not a "good deal" for America.. Amazing how some will willingly give up their personal sovereignty for some imagined security.

If it was a good deal for us.. Ask yourself this one simple question..

Why are ALL of the Politicians and their family EXEMPT and why are there now over 1000 waivers mostly Unions that do not have to comply?

Remember please remove your shoes as you step up to the line.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
jmatute

Thank you for an excellent contribution! I hope everyone will take the time to read it!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
acapella
Quote:

but this isn't the way to do it.

How should we do it? What part of the current implementation of Romney/Obamacare affects psychiatric care under Medicare? Are you talking about Medicare or Medicaid? I am not asking to be argumentative - I really don't know the answer to my questions. Medicare is not for POOR PEOPLE - but people who have reached a certain age.
I have been blessed to have good health for most of my life (actually all of my life). My mother reached the age of 101 - and basically had good health. When she was in her 80's her health began to fail. If it had not been for Medicare, she would have been financially ruined - and so would I. She paid quarterly for her Medicare - it was not for free! The expensive part of her care was not the cost of insurance or the services of her doctor. It was the cost of the drugs that were administered and hospital costs.

Recent Comments