The part in bold is my point. In America, it will not work because of the abuses. Of course, time will tell.
No not specific churches/religious organizations. It should be up to the respective individuals (citizens) within those belief systems as to how they help people. Taxing all citizens (well those that pay taxes anyway) to pay for everyone’s health care just seems morally wrong. To quote one of this Nation’s Founding Fathers...
Not to mention government is never as efficient as private organizations.
Again, this is a "fact" for which you provide no evidence. I do not believe that government is necessarily efficient in most cases. But there are plenty of examples in this country where we have a government monopoly that is necessary either because of circumstances or because it is most efficient to have it that way. Some examples include:
* Air transportation infrastructure (airports, air traffic control, weather systems, and even security). Including security might seem to support your view but we had private security pre-9/11 and it clearly failed horribly.
* Roads. There are of course private roads in some areas but there is no evidence they are more efficient and nearly all of them are only possible because of government subsidy
* National defense - there are private military organizations but no one would seriously suggest eliminating the military
* Utilities - most operate on as quasi-government monopolies. Privatization attempts about a decade ago were disasterous
* Legal system - there are private alternatives but they are not any more efficient
Not to mention a very broad range of government services that are consistently criticized until they are needed. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center was going to be closed until we had a disaster. The USGS is always criticized unless there has been a recent major earthquake. Even NOAA is attacked all the time for telling the truth that global warming is increasing the energy of storms yet no one complains when they use that fact to accurately predict a hurricane's course.
There are plenty of things that the private sector does better than government. But the private sector is extremely bad at managing large scale systems where returns are long term.
The freedom of women to kill their innocent unborn children is protected under Rowe Vs Wade. This is a very sad fact in my opinion. However, mandating that everyone in this country has to contribute financially toward this including religious organizations as well as many individual citizens who have a conscious objection to it seems a bit… Tyrannical.
How do you figure that everyone has to subsidize abortions? I certainly would not support that. I personally think that every woman should be entitled to access those services if she chooses but I don't want to pay for it any more than I want to pay for a smoker to be treated for lung cancer. I also don't want to pay for the incarceration of that unwanted child. I don't like subsidizing your church's property tax exemption either. But you know what, sometimes paying for things we don't like is part of living in a civil society. Get over it.
This probably seems this way because you do not understand the basics of my belief system. Contrary to what you’ve said in this thread and others I have thought critically about it. I believe in helping people of my own accord. I do not believe you will find in the Bible, and please correct me if I’m wrong, the idea that any of the “helping the poor” should be done by government. That is a responsibility of the Church (or any other religious or non-profit organization) and the individual. To take away that right and mandate a tax seems morally wrong.
Wow, the government helping people is morally wrong? What kind of moral code do you live by? I'll let you believe what you will about your church but you clearly are very misinformed about the reality of ancient middle eastern social systems. The religion WAS the government so the parallels you are trying to make are silly.
Even if there were nothing else I could find objection to this law other than the PP, I cannot as a Christian support what in my value system amounts to murder. The reason being is I believe this violates the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law... Being forced to support PP is wrong. How would you feel if someone forced you to support and pay for pro-life centers?
Perhaps we can agree that the justices are a little more versed in constitution law than either of us and none of them agreed your position that the law infringed upon religious freedom. Even the right wingers saw no infringement on religion.
Okay in spirit of teachability please point me in the right direction to getting the facts you speak of….
And what specific information do you consider misinformation? I’m looking for constructive criticism not just being told my vies are a bunch of hogwash please. Thanks in advance.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has a lot of objective (as near as I can tell) information about health care issues in this country. You can find a lot of information about international health care systems on wikipedia. If you don't like that as a reference then simply follow the links there to better, primary references. You might also search for "Swedish Institute" (http://www.si.se
) for information about the health care system there that Mr. Light mentioned. Perhaps Kombat would be in a better position to provide accurate resources to learn about the Canadian system. My information about Canada is anecdotal, from friends, and none of them have ever had to wait or been denied necessary care. I've also had German friends who had to be treated urgently (though not emergency) here in the US. As soon as the hospital knew they were covered by the German state system they were treated like royalty, I'm just sayin'!
We do have good health care here for those who can afford it. If the law simply makes it available to more people then that does not necessarily increase costs. Much of health care costs are fixed in the form of hospitals and equipment so that the marginal cost of treating more people is relatively small. And the idea is that expanding the pool (demand) will reduce costs, a solid conservative economic argument. Plus people will be able to get treated early which is generally accepted to reduce total treatment costs. But it is very hard to accurately quantify so it is a bit of a "wait and see."
And really, if everyone here just improved their diet a little bit and lost 5-10 lbs we'd save enough to pay for the changes many times over.