It has been estimated by the Center for American Progress that some 4 million Americans have lost health insurance due to the current recession. The trend is continuing. This is an enormous cost to society as people who are not cared for in a preventative way often become costly patients with otherwise preventable diseases. If we are not going to have public healthcare as in Europe, we still need some sort of universal coverage. We need to make basic healthcare affordable for all as we do for primary and secondary education.
Obama announced a $634 billion proposal to expand healthcare to cover those who are uninsured. It is planned to come via a reduction in itemized tax deductions for wealthy Americans (this part of the proposal has come under heavy bipartisan criticism), repeal of the George W. Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy, the continuation of the estate or inheritance tax, and from cuts in Medicare. Medicare for all would have been the most cost-effective approach, but for political and ideological reasons, the U.S. government at present wants to avoid, or is simply not ready for, a fully socialized healthcare system.
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48 million Americans have no health insurance.
We want to add here that if the government mandates that everyone must be covered regardless of preexisting conditions and all for the same premium amount, then private insurance companies would be competing on a level field and without having nearly so much bureaucratic incentive for not providing benefits. We know that not all of that incentive would be eliminated however. Could the investments for profit by the private carrier more than offset the costs for providing care that currently is being denied? Would the industry be regulated in such a way to guarantee that the people would be getting the most bang for the buck?
It's still being discussed though even in the mainstream media — socialized medicine.
We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations — but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.
Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. (Source: "Who You Calling Socialist?" by Harold Meyerson. The Washington Post. March 4, 2009; Page A15.)
I had a capitalist come here today leaving his ignorant comment but unwilling to leave his last name. He claimed it's ironic that capitalist nations lead the world in all the categories that matter. Well, the most capitalistic of the larger nations is the U.S., and look at those statistics just recited above.
Also, consider how the U.S. has created Empire via war and off the backs of wage slaves around the world.
Anyone who comes here bragging about capitalism is anti-Christ for sure.
Jesus hates the American political-economic system because it stinks and only stinking deniers troll around defending it. You better get right with God.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)