четверг, 4 октября 2007 г.

gamesociety: Bush's Veto

Acts 4:34-35 34. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35. And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Unfortunately, this is not the modern day church as originally prescribed in Acts. At least not here in America. And most people in the church promote financial diversity and adamantly defend it. But with that said, it also was not Socialism as it is defined today. Washington said "You can't have national morality apart from religious principle." Couldn't agree more. And that's the problem with today's Socialist nations. It's missing the heart and intent of the system in leiu of greed and corruption. I lay out these materials as the cornerstone for my thoughts regarding Bush's Veto on enhancing this bill that would have provided full medical coverage above and beyond for children in poverty. If we were indeed a Christian nation, poverty would either not exist or it would exist among us all. But even within the Church, you will find rich people sitting in one place, and poor in another, sometimes mixed but without any regard to the less fortunate and their needs. This is one reason I think Bush's faith based initiative stuff is ca-ca and full of corrupt intentions. Either that or he missed the mark completely thinking Americans were Christian enough to comply. I believe it's quite possible it was a good heart with hopes that Americans are better than what they are. And I think if Bush was wrong in anything, it's probably more than than anything else. OK, enough on Bush. Now let's look at the other side of the table. Regarding that they support abortion, same-sex marriage, poisoning minds at young ages with enforcing agendas in the class room, at what point do the Democrats give a damn about children??? Spare me the rhetoric. So let's throw the "Bush doesn't care for children" BS right out the window. Their claim is illegitimate because their shadow reflects a different person than they are trying to make themselves out to be (the Rush Limbaugh thing backs this up). It's hypocracy as usual and nothing more than more attempts for political gain. That's all that interests politicians right now, not the betterment of the people. I think Bush's Veto was an unwise selection of a battle to fight. I think he has an underlying agenda himself with the big checks from pharmacy and insurance lobbyists. If we lived in a society that actually applied Christian principles rather than putting them on our sleeves or rejecting them completely, the solution to healthcare would be simple and nobody would be lacking. Or let me be even more specific disregarding government all together. If the CHURCH was actually based on Christian principles, nobody within the CHURCH would have medical problems to worry about. But let's not get into church bashing at the moment. That's a whole other point that requires fair discernment and explanation on both sides. Let's keep it limited to government for now. It would require a bit of practice of Socialism without completely tilting the scales to having the government regulating EVERYTHING. The answer to healthcare seems to be all or nothing. There's a reason for this. If it comes to that point, I'd almost have to say government does not need to get involved at all. But that also includes abolishing lobbyists as well. Lobbying is a big problem in our government. My perspective. I currently have insurance. At times I didn't, I still made it though I still owe money to healthcare when I passed out in Anderson. But it's nice to schedule a doctor's appointment and be able to go in at a reasonable time. Who knows if something is wrong? It's just nice to check in. If healthcare is completely public, I could hang that luxury up even if I wanted to pay for it. European nations are plagued with this problem big time. Let's observe their pitfall and not fall into it on our own. Now for the individual who cannot afford health insurance. This is not a fair game at all because the doctors, pharmaceutical and insurance companies have gotten into a price game. The doctor hikes up his prices to get decent compensation from the insurance companies who keep paying lower than reasonable fees. But both sides have gotten greedy. In addition, the doctor tries to pay off his education for many years that has an incredibly unreasonable tuition that doesn't allow a fair playing field of who is allowed to be a doctor to begin with! Now in the mix of all of this, the pharmaceutical companies get into the game turning dust into diamonds because the doctors, now focused on volume rather than quality (due to being underpaid by insurance companies) just prescribe pills. Most medicine is not that expensive to make. That's not what you're paying for when you buy a pill. And the pill isn't always the cure. Guess who's the victim of this battle? The uninsured. So has privatization of medicine has turned out to be one of capitalism's failures? No. The lack of regulation on the entities and the complete regulation of the entities over the government has been the root of this problem. Free enterprise and government should always be kept separate. Lobbying groups kill this. And yes, our government could get stuff done without Lobbying groups. That's a bureaucratic lie. But what about those who can't afford healthcare? Well, let me ask first: have we been completely responsible with Welfare? Just paint the scenario, please. But now apply it to healthcare. Is this what we want? The answer is if we need the government to help, then I believe those people under government assistance should give up some liberties that come with independence. I'm not talking about giving away Amendments. I'm talking about: if you take something from the government -- the people -- then you also are expected to give back. See, that's the problem. We have a system that gives to people who never produce, and rarely because they can't. People who are in need, deal with them as such. Form a program that helps to build us all. Make it a win-win solution and not just a patch on poverty. Approaching a situation like that will never eliminate poverty. Money doesn't solve the problem. That's been proven many times over. Dealing with individuals as people and not numbers however DOES. Create a guiding protocol that works to build individuals up rather than simply sending out checks and overbloated unecessary government spending. Cut that out and lo and behold! *gasp* EVERYONE prospers! Neat, huh? Back to one point I scratched the surface on. Let's dig a little deeper. What's disappointing is that such a condition as our healthcare system is in, it leaves an awesome opportunity for the church to show what it's made of, Who it's built on and how it takes care of its own... that is if the church was actually built on true Christian principles. I'm coming to discover very quickly that it's not. Is it any wonder why the church is then despised? A church can hide behind "well, it's because that's Satan working against us." Not when people have that general opinion and can give you reason for it. Yet churches still keep doing what they're doing and will keep getting what they're getting. In the meantime, a dying world sits at its threshold with no better answers inside or out. It's not that we don't have the right answers as Christians. But ya gotta clean the garbage out before you have a clean house. Inequality does not exist among true Christians. We either prosper together or we suffer together. I saw "we:, but I'm beginning to realize that "we" is a very small number. And that is very troubling.

Комментариев нет: