Skip to main content

The President of the United States talking to religious leaders on promoting his agenda? Liberals scream bloody murder about the right's influence from "The church" BUT if they can use that same entity in THEIR favor they get a complete pass. It's almost comical.

Barack Obama seeks divine intervention on health care reform

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42540.html

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s...0.html#ixzz10MI7tnbx

By SARAH KLIFF | 9/22/10 10:33 AM EDT Updated: 9/22/10 2:33 PM EDT

With nothing else working, President Barack Obama is asking religious leaders to help him sell the public on health care reform.
POLITICO listened in to an Oval Office conference call Tuesday, where Obama and top administration officials, beseeched thousands of faith-based and community organizations to preach the gospel on new insurance reforms, chiefly the Patients’ Bill of Rights.

“Get out there and spread the word,” Obama told leaders from across the religious spectrum on the conference call, organized by the Health and Human Services Center for Faith-Based and Community Partnerships.
“This is something that we’ll be able to look back on, just like we do on Medicare and Social Security, as a cornerstone that improves the security of millions of Americans, at the same time lowers costs and gets control of costs, both at the government level, but also for families and businesses," he added.
Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends.
“The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law ... I think all of you can be really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors, to help explain what’s now available to them,” he said.
The call included the administration’s highest-ranking health reform officials: Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, White House Office of Health Reform director Nancy Ann-DeParle, and Assistant to the President for Special Products Stephanie Cutter.
Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Partnerships, gave activists a rallying cry: “Get the word out there, get information out there. Make use of the resources we’ve described on this call: the website, door hangers, one pagers and so forth. We’ve got work to do.”
DuBois ended the call by giving leaders a point-by-point rundown of the new Patients’ Bill of Rights that rolls out Thursday. “These protections, our families need to know these things,” he said.

Faith groups briefed the administration on plans under way to educate the public and organize this weekend.
“We’re rolling up our sleeves to get our communities ready for reform,” said Gloria Cooper, a volunteer with People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO), who cited the Bring Health Reform Campaign, designed to both educate the public on the new law and push for a stronger provider network.


PICO plans to distribute 50,000 door hangers in lower-income communities within the next two weeks, the group’s spokesperson, Gordon Whitman, told POLITICO. PICO meets with the administration regularly and participated in an HHS-run call for faith groups just last week.
Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches, who also participated in the call, has also seen regularly outreach from the White House on reform issues.
"Since the law passed, there's been some discussion about what the best way to get information out on this law," she said. "There are a lot of conversations about what to do on health care, how we can be a good partner."
The White House sees the faith-based community as a key partner in spreading information on health reform issues.
"We believe community-based and faith-based can spread the word," an administration official told POLITICO. "They are reaching people every day in churches, synagogues, mosques and secular organizations. They can spread the word about these things."
On the call, DeParle said the administration has noticed the faith-based efforts. She noted that a fellow congregant thanked her last Sunday for the provision that allows dependents to be covered up to age 26.
“I know some of you have done some work to educate,” DeParle said.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Liberals don't want this to turn into a theocracy, but there is nothing wrong with asking the faithful to get the word out about our new rights. After all, what could be more Christian than wanting to see EVERYONE have access to healthcare? I truly believe that Jesus would agree that it is a sin to let the people die because their insurance company dropped them when they got sick.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Not a violation of church and state at all. He isn't trying to pass a law that we all go to church. He is asking for help to get the word out.

Do any of you remember Bush's Faith Based Initiative? Why weren't you complaining about that?


Obama specifically asked churches to defend the policy of one political party over another. That is in direct violation of a church's ability to maintain their tax free status. Fine, let them proselytize and then the IRS can tax them!
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Liberals don't want this to turn into a theocracy, but there is nothing wrong with asking the faithful to get the word out about our new rights. After all, what could be more Christian than wanting to see EVERYONE have access to healthcare? I truly believe that Jesus would agree that it is a sin to let the people die because their insurance company dropped them when they got sick.


What new rights are you talking about? Healthcare isn't a right. What insurance company did Jesus or the disciples use?
quote:
get the word out about our new rig


Healthcare isn't a right.

quote:
After all, what could be more Christian than wanting to see EVERYONE have access to healthcare?


Obama hasn't given everyone access to healthcare.

quote:
Affordable healthcare is one of the cornerstones of what Americans and the rest of the people of Earth view as a necessity in a civilized society.


While that sounds nice, it's more of a platitude than a meaningful statement. Still, Congress is actively pushing to make healthcare more expensive and see to it that fewer Americans have it, so I don't see your point.
health care cost have been going up 10% per year for 20 years. BushII had 8 years to do something and all he could manage, with a Rep Congress no less, was Medicare Part D, which is a huge payoff to the pharma industry, and is totally unfunded meaning $100billion per year of debt.

Democare will either be progress, or force a new law to be enacted which will be progress, so at least the solution is closer to realization.
quote:
health care cost have been going up 10% per year for 20 years. BushII had 8 years to do something and all he could manage, with a Rep Congress no less, was Medicare Part D, which is a huge payoff to the pharma industry, and is totally unfunded meaning $100billion per year of debt.


Bush was a terrible, terrible president. I don't understand why Obama supporters compare the two administration unless they secretly don't think Obama is very good either. That bar is set pretty low. I digress...

quote:
Democare will either be progress, or force a new law to be enacted which will be progress, so at least the solution is closer to realization.


We are no closer now than before the Congress passed that stupid law. When we let Congress try to write a new bill to fix the old bill, they will screw that up too. They're politicians.
I dont know any OBama supporters, this is after all the state which gave McCain his second highest winning percentage, second only to AZ.

I cant understand why people think that putting Reps back in power will be progress??? The Tea Party has an opportunity right now to establish a viable third party, with the help and money that Fox, Rush and Palin can muster, and by garnering Rep defectors that are truly Conservatives, not people from the fringe of society, like O'Donnell.
quote:
Ah, but with this new law, healthcare IS a right.


No it isn't.

First, it doesn't provide healthcare for everyone, so it fails at meeting that objective, and a "right" would apply to everyone equally.

Second, even if the government did provide everyone with healthcare, it wouldn't make it a right. It would just be another form of welfare. Rights exists in spite of governments, not because of them.
Health care is not one of the enumerated rights found in the Constitution, but the 9th leaves to us the determination all our rights. Such as a right to privacy, or a right to choose abortion.

And, your right to free speech is certainly not equal to Limbaughs.

We allow government to exist to secure and protect our rights, so the two are intertwined.
quote:
And, your right to free speech is certainly not equal to Limbaughs.


I don't know what this means.

quote:
We allow government to exist to secure and protect our rights, so the two are intertwined.


...or this.

quote:
There are so many people who have been denied healthcare coverage through no fault of their own. These people mentioned in this article are not getting FREE healthcare, they will be paying for it, and they will be paying a lot, but at least they are now allowed to buy insurance.


That's all nice, but it doesn't change the fact that healthcare is not a right.

quote:
As a caring Christian, I think this is wonderful.


Will you think it's wonderful when our healthcare system starts to worsen? That IS going to happen.
If the Obama plan was so great why have so few signed up for the high risk pool? Some states have only had ONE applicant. It's a bust.

Obamacare will be expensive, have high deductibles and low payout. Insurance companies are already 'adjusting' their costs so you will pay more IF you get to keep your own insurance.
They are also dropping child policies before the mandates take over. If you have to buy insurance or be fined, that is not a right, that is a TAX!

It's all smoke and mirrors, with no plan on how to implement and not enough physicians to do so.

I would bet ER visits triple under Obamacare and waiting times do as well.

I really HOPE I'm wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
And, your right to free speech is certainly not equal to Limbaughs.


I don't know what this means.

quote:
We allow government to exist to secure and protect our rights, so the two are intertwined.


...or this.



That's all nice, but it doesn't change the fact that healthcare is not a right.



Will you think it's wonderful when our healthcare system starts to worsen? That IS going to happen.




Your right to free speech is the same as Limbaughs. You can got out in the street and tell everyone your opinion, and Rsuh can push a button and share his opinion with 25 million people. Equality is not part of having a right.

You have the rights that the government has deemed to protect. Your right to privacy is now subject to the intrusion created by the Patriot Act. The FBI has been using the Patriot Act to investigate US citizens that participate in Tea Party protests, without those troublesome warrants or even probable cause.


Healthcare might be a right, that has not been decided yet. Right now if someone is sick or injured, a hospital is required by law to render aid without regard to being compensated, and if the hospital was to refuse, they would be guilty of a civil and a criminal charge. Does that make it a right?



.
Juan-

I've said before: rights exist in spite of governments, not because of them. People who live under brutal dictators have the same rights you and I have, theirs are just being violated more than ours.

Healthcare could only be considered a "basic right" in the sense that anyone who prevents you from seeking and obtaining healthcare would be violating your rights. Having a government guarantee of getting medicine and medical treatment simply isn't a right. Neither is the guarantee of getting food, water, clothing, shelter, etc... A civilized and advanced society would surely want to see that everyone receives these things, and it is generally considered good and moral to make sure the least among us are taken care of, but that still doesn't create "rights."
I am required by law to have a driver's license if I drive. Is that a right?


If you are required to treat all sick people, that is a law not a right.

I have the right to free speech. I do not have the right to hate speech.

I have the right to worship as I please, I do not have the right to burn down someone else's church.

I have the right to carry a gun, I do not have the right to murder some one with it.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
I am required by law to have a driver's license if I drive. Is that a right?


If you are required to treat all sick people, that is a law not a right.

I have the right to free speech. I do not have the right to hate speech.

I have the right to worship as I please, I do not have the right to burn down someone else's church.

I have the right to carry a gun, I do not have the right to murder some one with it.


.

If you have a drivers license, and access to a properly registered and insured vehicle, then you have a right to operate that vehicle on public roads.

You DO have a right to hate speech. See Westboro Baptist website http://www.godhates***s.com/

You have a right to own a gun, if you abide by numerous state and federal laws. You need a license to carry one, which is issued at the pleasure of our local sheriff.
The Declaration stated it well:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;..."

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness flowing from a Creator. For you atheists, flowing from you existence. Feel better!
flowing from
Government's job is to protect those rights both from interference from individuals, and from government, itself. True, the Bill of Rights list more. However, unless they are listed in our written law, no other rights exist. The US had a written constitution and bill of rights for a specific reason. Unlike, the UK which claims to have a constitution and bill of rights -- unwritten ones. Resulting in one parliament nationalizing everything in sight and the next privatizing it.
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others(rights) retained by the people.

There is no exhaustive list of an individuals rights. Even in 1787, there was partisanship and the rights included in the BoR were a compromise.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
Life itself, and the pursuit of happiness depend on being healthy. If someone is denied healthcare, they can have no pursuit of happiness, and in some cases, they can lose their life.


No one is denied healthcare. Just go to an ER one night. If we make healthcare a right, then there will be limits set by the government. You will not be able to choose what you eat, the government will. You will have mandatory drug testing at all work places for everyone. You will have to be seen by a government doctor and undergo government tests.

Dammmm, anyone else thinking "1984"?

SCARY!
quote:
I excercise my right to vote, yet the candidate of my choice is not elected, my rights are still intact.

The right to healthcare, if there is such a right, will not include a right to a good outcome.


Your analogy doesn't work. O No suggested that because "the pursuit of happiness" is dependent on being healthy, that health care is a right. That is effectively saying that health care leads to health, which leads to the pursuit of happiness. If health care doesn't lead to health, reason follows that someone's rights have been violated.

On another note, the right to vote is neither a natural right nor is it absolute.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
B, I DID go to the ER one night, and I was turned away. They told me to go see my regular doctor in the morning, and I WAS BLEEDING HEAVILY. I suppose I could have sued, but if I couldn't afford the lawyer's fees, what could I do? I wound up going to Planned Parenthood and they helped me.


Won't happen here. I have seen people there for headaches, sprains, colds, puking, fever, etc..

Not even emergencies, but no one was turned away.

Was it a private ER?
No, not private. I THINK (not sure) that a lot of these hospitals figure you can't afford to sue so they just take their chances. I have heard other people say they were turned away too.

Of course then there are hospitals like the ones in New York and Los Angeles where people have died in the waiting room and just lay there dead for hours before anyone does anything about it.

My opinion of the medical profession isn't too high.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I excercise my right to vote, yet the candidate of my choice is not elected, my rights are still intact.

The right to healthcare, if there is such a right, will not include a right to a good outcome.


Your analogy doesn't work. O No suggested that because "the pursuit of happiness" is dependent on being healthy, that health care is a right. That is effectively saying that health care leads to health, which leads to the pursuit of happiness. If health care doesn't lead to health, reason follows that someone's rights have been violated.

On another note, the right to vote is neither a natural right nor is it absolute.


The analogy works fine. Rights dont come with guarantees. I would certainly be more happy if I was a billionaire, and I have that option, yet I'm wasting my time plinking on this computer instead. My right to happiness has not been infringed, I just didnt fully exercise it.

A federal court will decide in the next few years if healthcare is a right, and if it is then we will be taxed to provide it. For everyone.

The right to vote is a natural right for male landowners. And 2/3 of the negroes.

When Democare is up and running, you should see about having your hyperbole removed.
quote:
A federal court will decide in the next few years if healthcare is a right


The problem you seem to have is that you think governments grant rights. They don't. A federal court may make a decision, but that decision can't change the fundamental fact that health care no more meets the definition of a natural right than the right to free airline tickets.

quote:
The right to vote is a natural right for male landowners. And 2/3 of the negroes.


Voting isn't a right. Voting is a privilege governments grant to people.
quote:
Originally posted by O No!:
No, not private. I THINK (not sure) that a lot of these hospitals figure you can't afford to sue so they just take their chances. I have heard other people say they were turned away too.

Of course then there are hospitals like the ones in New York and Los Angeles where people have died in the waiting room and just lay there dead for hours before anyone does anything about it.

My opinion of the medical profession isn't too high.


I like my primary physician and that's about it. The ER's here take anyone. If you have no insurance, they see you, treat the emergency then send your butt to a public hospital. Maybe yours are more overrun than they can handle. It's a 2 to 3 hour wait here most of the time, but you will be seen.
Then you'd better stop driving on roads that our taxes pay for. You'd better not send your kids to a public school that our taxes pay for. Heck, do you remember a while back when TV went to all digital and the government provided vouchers for those who couldn't afford to buy the converter boxes? Now THAT is a REAL waste of MY tax dollars. I'd MUCH rather my tax dollars went to help sick people in need, than to help them rot their brains watching TV!
quote:
Then you'd better stop driving on roads that our taxes pay for. You'd better not send your kids to a public school that our taxes pay for.


This argument is often made, and completely ridiculous. First, most of this is state funded, not federally funded. Second, it's not the fault of those of us who advocate market based solutions that the government runs so many things. I pay taxes for roads too, of course I'm going to drive on them. If I make the argument that private toll roads would be better, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to drive on government owned roads.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×