God's plans and movements are not regulated by anybody. He promises to provide for all faithful followers. Sometimes His actions are a little surprising, but they are meant to be the best.

I must have him over for a Tea Party sometime since he is such a human micro-manager yet with so many who "think" and speak FOR him rather than live by his teachings in everyday life.......like say the compassion, care (including health care), and love for everyone. But oh, I forgot again: your god is like the terrorists' god - only meant for them, only "agrees with them" (and when he doesn't you people just change His Book), justifies everything they do and say - even the hate and all.

ridiculous.

Everyone gets sick and everyone dies - faithful or faithless. Faith is not about getting medical bills paid, or being successfully treated medically; it is about our devotion to God and his purpose, despite what happens to us as individuals. The bigger picture is not personal health or even personal salvation. It is God's addressing of the original questionings of and disobedience to His universal sovereignty.

I'm all for the way in which these people share their resources to help pay each others' bills. Very much like a big commune if you think about it - hippie ideals really.

The only problem I see is the exclusivity of the plan. But of course there is no reason why they have to be open to everyone, it just seems a little weird that you have to prove you went to church every week in order to get benefits. It feels a little creepy and a bit like a bribe to compel people to meet some "ideal" lifestyle. I mean, all insurance groups have guidelines by which they accept or deny people, but to deny someone based on whether or not they believe Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead and all, instead of tangible risk factors, well that just seems creepy and strange. I wonder what would happen if a member was found to be gay?

I have faith that everybody gets to die one day. What religion does that make me? All of them?

charles,

only a leftwing liberal could see harm in this. insurance is based on actuarial tables and collection of premiums, neither of which are present in these ministries. in fact, these groups aren't even coops in the loosest sense of the word.

radagast,

exclusivity? is that like naacp? or glaad? church membership or attendance is not a requirement to participate. this is a group of people that share a faith and values system, that are following those tenets. as with the early Church, they share each others burdens in common.

First off what Christian religion charges anyone for any kind of service. Christ expects everyone to help everyone else and not charging them. These so called Christian Entities that charge you for any service is an oxy-moron and doesnt have the best interest of anyone but themselves.

radagast, there is nothing stopping other groups from doing the same thing. True religions boil down to helping one another out in that do unto others as you would have them do unto you style. If gays want to make their own and make "creepy" requirements like proving they have same-sex relations, they can.

dorrit, your complete misinformation on what religion is all about is nothing but hate speach (a liberal term they made illegal btw). There is no religion other than the groups that twist meanings or take things out of context (extremist Muslim, cults, satan worshippers, etc) that believes their God is only for them. Christianity is all about God loving ALL of his children. It's all about forgive and forget/turn the other cheek. They aren't out to get you or having meetings about you. Stop being paranoid. There is no justification for hate taught in the bible. Noone "changed the book" to say that. You're confusing what happened during the dark ages when the Catholic church and government were hand in hand and leaders were quite ruthless in their monarchy rules with religion. Those were evil men and nobody in religios cirlces thinks they were in the right.

If people pooling $$ together to help those less fortunate with medical problems is such an issue, don't make a religious debate over it, condemn Obamacare for the same reason.

Allen,

FIrst off, if you want to pull the hate speech card (which is not illegal per the 1st amendment, only hate crimes are illegal), then you have to deal with the fact that you tell gays, lesbians, atheists, and people of other religions they are going to go to a fiery lake when they die because they don't agree with what you say god has said, or even that there is a god. I'd say that's pretty hateful. And your lame ascertion that the bible does not teach hate is completely off. If you had read the book, you'd see how your god is a jealous mass-murdering psychopath with people who don't believe him. Your claim of salvation and blah blah blah is just noise that preachers have used to draw more people in, but it is actually a very bigoted, misogynistic piece of writing, cobbled together over many generations by various authors, then voted on to determine what should be included in a very political manner. Doesn't quite seem like a god would operate that way.

Secondly, the exemption is only for faith-based programs like this. Those of us who have no religion cannot create our own communal health cost-sharing program and be exempt.

Do the tea party christians know about the socialist christians? And will the "true" republican christians will disown them all?

Good question Steve. How long until the Teabaggers show up at these co-ops run by "Socialists Christians" waving their flags, banners and guns?

To all the haters, wasn't the goal of health care "reform" to ensure everyone had access to medical care? Aren't these folks taking care of their care?? If you've got a better idea speak up if not shut up!!!

@ wildweasel, Allen

I said I had no problem with the idea of sharing resources for the common good, but I did find it strange that this particular group requires proof of christianity and a strict adherence to their beliefs in order to belong, and that's my only problem.

From the article:

In return, members agree to adhere to a so-called biblical lifestyle. At Samaritan, which is based in Peoria, Ill., members are expected to attend church three out of every four Sundays and to submit verification signed by a minister.

Ministry members are asked to agree to Christian tenets of faith...

Call it what you will, but in my book that is called exclusivity. I would also call it bribing people with healthcare in order to spread religion.

Allen, I really don't think that the idea of gays starting a health co-op (or whatever this arrangement is called) and demanding that members perform homosexual acts will grant them an exemption from new laws. So no, not everyone can go ahead and do the same. And If I want to join and get out from under the government's new laws I would have to embrace christianity fully. That sounds worse to me than having to pay a fine for not having healthcare.

They have these christian proof clauses as a way to ensure that new members aren't just refugees from new health insurance laws - exclusivity, and they use them to spread their faith. Of course, their faith instructs them to share others' burdens, but in practice it seems they only share the burdens of other christians.

I am a member of Samaritan Ministries. I have been a member of this type of organization for over 12 years now. I have had 3 children via C-section, an appendectomy and 8 weeks ago, hip surgery. All of these needs were paid for by my fellow members, most of which send notes to get well and that they are praying for my recovery. One of my children has scoliosis. This was discovered when she was 8 and has been an on-going need every since. Each doctor visit and check up related to this need continues to be published in the newsletter of Samaritan and paid for in full. My family of five pays around $300 each month for this coverage and I LOVE IT! I love to send my money to a family just like mine who loves the Lord and has needs that I can help them with. I love that my money goes to a real person, not a company. I love that I can pray for that person and be an encourager through times of need. I have had traditional insurance in the past and I can't recall one time that they sent me a card or called to ask if I am doing alright. I am thankful for this type of ministry and honestly if it too becomes "illegal"as part of Obama Care, then I will pay the fine and continue to help others. It is worth that much to me and my family.

HizKid,

Our family has been with Samaritan for 8 years and we have been very pleased also. Some say that this is an "ungodly" plan because it excludes people who have unhealthy practices or don't believe the way we do. I would encourage these people to set up a similar program with their friends and other like-minded people. I do know this, with the money I saved by being part of Samaritan, I was able to go to Haiti as part of a medical team and help people who didn't have any place to turn for medical care much less basic needs.

Hell, I am a devout Atheist, born and raised, but I cannot see anything wrong with all this. There are many ways of defining a community, religion is just one of many, and a program like this is a truly ethical way for the many to take care of the few (we all end up being one of the few eventually). Thank Zeus I have employer provided health care, otherwise I would just "fake the faith".

Paying each others' medical bills in fine; Mormons look out for each other like that.

Beats the hell out of relying on prayer (which, throughout recorded history, has never cured anything).

sounds good to me! in then end though i don't know if you can trust your church much more than your government... i know, this brings us back to faith, but still.

Wow! It's amazing to see the number of people on here bitching up a storm because people decided to take a situation in their own hands. Amazing to see the ignorant masses make a jack ass conclusion that being a conservative means being a republican or a christian. Amazing the numbers of these same people claim that they're so much more intelligent, compassionate and accepting than any conservative.

Liberalism rears it's ugly head again.

I'm glad to see that there are people who can conduct themselves like human beings instead of crying for big brother to fix what they broke themselves! Very refreshing.

This is a good model. I had posted before that there are supposed to be about 40 million uninsured Americans and if there was a way that they could all connect, they could create an insurance system. But I believe the Big insurance companies BCBS and the rest would do everything they could to defeat it.

These people understand the risks and CHOOSE to participate.

Is that so strange in today's America?

Oh right, government is supposed to protect us from ourselves... RIIIGHT...

"Hurry, here is something that's working for people. We need to KILL IT WITH REGULATION" - Random Government Bureaucrat

I said I had no problem with the idea of sharing resources for the common good, but I did find it strange that this particular group requires proof of christianity and a strict adherence to their beliefs in order to belong, and that's my only problem.

It's a private system. They can set thier own rules. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.

socialist christians?

Obama's plan is not really socialist, it is corporatist, I am not a tea partier, and I am not a republican. That being said you need to be corrected:

Socialism involves force of government. This is obviously something done by choice and therefore would not qualify.

Oh right, government is supposed to protect us from ourselves.

Actually I think the idea is to protect us from corporate control.

Government controlled corporations are no better than private corporations !! As long as lobbyists and special interests hold more sway than voters (and that applies to local, state and national politicians) we're gonna be sucking!! Health care "reform" did little to reduce the rise of medical costs. Neither do these type of co-ops, although it's better than doing nothing and certainly better than failing to pay for treatment!!

The rising costs of medical care is a problem, but I bet the Co-ops don't care if you have an existing condition. I remember when I was growing up it was normal for someone to have 1, or 2 jobs for their entire life. Maybe sometime during their carrier they could get sick and miss some work. But come back be productive and have coverage until they retire. Now having a job at one place is very rare. So if you get sick and say your company moves to India or China you now have an existing condition. We have to do something. We can't let corporate America change to leverage their options and expect the American people to be stuck in the 1970s way of doing things. Everything is changing. Globalization is accepted and defended for Corporate America, outsourcing our jobs is just the change in the way business is done. But when it comes to change to help the American people that can only be criticized.

This is insurance, with exclusion for high risk, and it excludes addiction treatment, mental health care. I wonder how they handle expensive end-of-life care? What about alzheimers? I'll bet the reverend talks to the sick person about hospice. Otherwise the system would go bankrupt. Interesting.......

Allen968499,

What Janstince told you. Only double. I read your little post and thought, "gee, anti-catholicism." So much for your love thy neighbor harangue!

I did wonder about the "faith" part of this thing. Perhaps the faith is that those that aren't sick and can afford it will send in contributions on a regular basis. God can certainly move on people's hearts to do that. Even if we have a job with insurance, maybe that's a good thing to do in the event the job goes away, and takes the insurance with it....the track record is already in place. The requirement for this one in the article is that the person lead a moral, faith-based life....no problem for me... I think I'll find out more information.

I wonder if they go by faith when they have Cancer, Bad Heart are Diabetes???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

What would happen if she wanted hemp oil to cure her melanoma? I wonder what the religious right would think about that. Watch the above video from Canada.

Nope, it is more like a cooperative. It is a membership under Christian guidelines and payments are directly to individuals not a corporate office.

AMEN, and AMEN.

I bet Jesus would be considered a Liberal in today's thinking, a true champion of the poor!

Yes, but I don't believe that Jesus would push for government forced charity. He wanted people to give from their heart, not because government wanted us too.

Intent can mean more than actions in some situations. If I give money to a group to further a political career, it can be negative. I may not actually support the group and move to shut it down once in office. Be careful when giving people power. It may just come back to bite you in the butt.

We'll never know what Jesus would push for, but I'll bet He'd be leaning left.

steve 60 - re post 2.2:

That's why the American Right Wing is going thru the Bible, deleting anything that may sound NON-elitist - what they call socialist.

...besides their god is better than your god because their god GIVES them healthcare("nah-nah-nee-nah-nah!") and if you don't like it their god will beat up your god...... ..........LOL! I know, I know... the compulsives will be all over this post but this really takes the cake! How stupid do they think the rest of America is! I mean, yes, they are amusing at times, but their delusions are so absurd, pitifully absurd.

Well the program in the story does not match the criteria you have posted. So it isn't a true co-op.

This particular group in the article does have "premiums" based on number of family members and medical history...so not a co-op.

Government "forced" socialism and grass roots socialism are two ends of the same continuum. If you want to be a member of the co-op then you pay your dues. There is a group of people who keeps track of it all and enforces the rules. How is that different than government doing the same, except for the scale of the operation? In the co-op the average person feels more close and connected to the process because the group is small. In the government program people feel distant and disconnected because it is so large. It is this disconnected feeling - the feeling that your voice is so small amongst the millions of others - that leads some to feel forced. But isn't our nation just one big, giant co-op?

Then there is the difference between secular co-ops and these religious ones. The secular co-ops don't require you to prove that you are a christian in good standing by showing proof of church attendance. The religious co-op is using health insurance as a way to sell their beliefs at least as much as they use it as a means to express those beliefs.

You're right, Ruth. It isn't. It looks as if it's gotten much too big to be sending out individualized bills from one member to all its other members, hence the monthly fee. Plus it doesn't cover preventative care and asks for individuals to cover a lot of their own needs, which strikes me as odd. Still, it's non-profit which is a vast improvement over the insurance industry.

And as far as Jesus, there was no doubt he was left leaning. But let's get something straight. Jesus wasn't Robin Hood. He didn't rob the rich to give to the poor. His ministry was about SOCIAL JUSTICE! It wasn't just about selling all your possessions and giving to the poor. That was PART of it, but that was not the CRUX of it.

He was about fighting a system that oppressed and abused his people: the rich elite that used money and influence and power to deny opportunity and hope from some in order to continue to line their own pockets. People who are poor and uneducated are easier to control and take advantage of. This is what Jesus fought against. This is the mindset he tried to change. And those who were in control felt that power slipping away and had him killed.

See, we can throw money into charities all we want, but unless we alleviate the conditions that breed poverty, things will never get better. And it's not just people being lazy. Yes, some people are lazy. They will never work and will therefore always be poor. But what about the single mom working two jobs just make ends meet? We shouldn't just give her money (although we should give to help in the short term) but we should fight to change conditions so that she can support her family on ONE good salary. Remember when a father could own a home, a car and support a family of four on one income? That was less than 50 years ago. What happened? Or what about the inner city kid born to a drug addicted mom and a behind bars father? Without a supportive family structure, do you think he'll care about his education? Can we really expect that kid to rise above that misery all on his own? If not, what do you think will become of that kid? He'll most likely follow in either mom's or dad's footsteps. How do we break that cycle? How do we alleviate those conditions so that he knows there's a better life out there? Who will care that he goes to school or has an education or thinks of his future when his own parents could care less about whether or not he's alive?

This is what Jesus calls us to do! SOCIAL JUSTICE! We need to level the playing field to eliminate conditions that cause poverty: greed, selfishness, ego, fear, pride, envy, excessiveness. You can't regulate that, though. You can't pass laws that will get rid of that. You can only do that by changing peoples' hearts and minds. We need to help folks understand the huge difference between NEEDS and WANTS. We need to learn to trust each other. To have compassion of each other. To have understanding for one another. To love one another. And how do you do that? By example. Lead by example. Don't point fingers. Don't cast blame. Stop calling each other left wing or right wing, Republican or Democrat, Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist. Stop with the labels. Just try your damnest each and every day to put the needs of others before your own in hope that they will be moved by your actions and return those actions in kind. Even if they don't return that kindness. Keep doing it. Trust me. You will eventually affect some one, you will move them, you will touch their heart and they will then do the same for someone else. It's the golden rule.

Don't get me wrong. It's not easy. In fact, it's very, very hard. Nobody ever said being nice was going to be a walk in the park. But that was Jesus' ministry in a nutshell, folks. "Love one another, just as I have so loved you."

steve,

1-Jesus was apolitical.

2-He could hardly be a liberal, because personal responsibility was something He espoused. the entitlement culture today would be called what it really is: the new slavery.

3-yep, He was a champion of the oppressed and poor. but libruls overlook the only means He dealt with it: individually on a personal level. notice government bureaucrats and dictators are out of the picture. see, it's a person's personal responsiblity to look after the poor and oppressed, not pay taxes and let some faceless (and possibly heartless) bureaucrat do it. it it would involve you getting out on the street and getting dirty doing something that requires a personal sacrifice, not just mailing in your check on april 15. that doesn't absolve you from being your brothers keeper-we all are, like it or not.

4-Jesus didn't like overreaching and expansive government. they're nameless, faceless, and heartless. He wanted those in need to be taken care of by those with personal involvement, with skin in the game. a government has no skin in the game.

It's all just speculation of how Jesus would feel about it all, He won't be returning in our life time, but He did care for the poor, more than these "Christians" do today.

Liberals really think Jesus would be for forced charity, money changing, lying, cheating, bad mouthing their neighbors on the other side of the aisle, and led by someone who denounced Christianity on behalf of the entire nation to appease Muslims?

Jesus wouldn't be right wing either. Religion and politics were both created by man. Remember, Jesus condemned the major churches of the time for many of the things politicians and those who hold all the $$ are doing today.

Religion has but one purpose. To read scripture together and understand. This seems to be something all of the religious bashers above lack - understanding of even the most basic principals of that which they denounce and attack.

Allen, God and the Scriptures were both created by man. Religion does have one purpose, to manipulate.

I've actually got a somewhat decent understanding of mass hysteria, paranoia, fear-mongering, and power-hunger. Maybe I'll start my own church.

By the way Allen, who were you referring to when you wrote:

"Jesus would be for forced charity, money changing, lying, cheating, bad mouthing their neighbors on the other side of the aisle, and led by someone who denounced Christianity on behalf of the entire nation to appease Muslims?"

Republicans? Democrats? Who?

Close, but the first century church was more true communism than socialism. The key point there is that it was people all sharing their resources by CHOICE... not government.

This is simply not possible to sustain in a large scale on Earth.

Read a little between the lines. NO ADDICTION RECOVERY, NO MENTAL HEALTH CARE, nobody asks for care for anything the least bit embarrassing. You can ask for back surgery care, but what about the pain med addiction afterward? Would that be something you could ask for coverage for? What do they do about wayward teenagers? What if the teenager made a poor decision and ended up in ER for alcohol poisining? I bet the family wouldn't even ask for a donation. What if the poor decision involved crashing the car and getting injured? Would the family ask then? There is no privacy in this. Life isn't clean and neat and tidy even for those families trying their best. It's better to have something a bit more private than this.

I see who is getting the votes on here, and it is the wolves that attack statements by Christians. Say on, those of you who hate us without cause. We WILL get the final word!

Your off on a couple of points. They do (my group) negotiate for lower prices with doctors or facilities and you are required to pay your allotted portion if you expect to receive help when you have a medical cost. This is only fair and it is a Christian principle. Our bible tells us to care for each other and this is a very good way to eliminate the corruption and high cost of the insurance industry.

In this country The Government IS The People

As a Christian I must disagree with your comment completly. I do not mind helping people, as a matter of fact I enjoy it and enourage others to do the same. What I believe most people have a problem with is the government mandating charity. I want to give what I feel is appropriate in accordance with my budget, and too whom I decide as there are many organizations, and groups I do not wish to sponser because of my beliefs. An example would be, I do not wish to see my money going to abortion. I respect you if you agree with abortion, but I do not want to pay for it. There is a reason these groups exsist. That is because people donate to them, if you want to help people with these acts be my guest, I wont try and stop you.

Basically, I do not feel that it is right for the government too decide who gets my money. I probably donate more than the gov. will take, however, my donations to groups I care about and support will go down as taxes go up because my budget will be forced to account for the increase in taxes.

Abortion is off the table. The President signed an act that the Health Care Bill would not cover abortion, so no one will be paying for it, except the person who is getting one. I just feel that the Presient has done the right thing by making sure all Americans have health insurance, it's the Christian thing to do. It's not the Christian thing to do by puting up a fight against Health Care, like some the the Republicans have done.

What's amazing is that they say that the US is "a christian nation" but they want to decide who gets health care and who doesn't -it all has to be on their terms only = they are the only ones who can play god. Maybe it is because they think they can see, hear, speak and think for their god...oh! we're off to see The Wizard!

You don't hear too much from the Republicans these days about their God. Obviously, they don't think much of his advice when they refuse to lift a finger to help their fellow man or support the society in which they live. I did hear that one Republican group is working on a revised Republican Jesus, who will heap scorn on the poor and tell them to "get a job".

Russ - because Jesus sure never helped prostitutes, thieves, lepers, minorities and other undesirables in his society...oh, wait. Given his comments about giving to Ceasar what is his due, doesn't seem like he had an issue with paying taxes either. So, what would Jesus do???

Steve

Jesus wanted everyone equal,there is no way the beliefs of Americans are Christian,beliefs here contradict everything about Christ. He gave the world for people to share equally notice i said equally,not what Americans call equal but what Christ Calls equal. Christ would be more Communist/Marxist minus a few of thier ideas.

steve 60

Abortion is off the table. The President signed an act that the Health Care Bill would not cover abortion, so no one will be paying for it, except the person who is getting one.

You mean the executive order that was signed in order to overturn the law of the nation as it was worded? If that's all it took, why didn't he just sign his own bill on a napkin after dinner and make it law without all the hullabaloo the last year? Could it be that it doesn't work that way???

Maybe Allen, but he did it to apeace the pro-life Dems

Can any of you quote anything in the Christian bible that says that it's a Christian's obligation to pay for the health care of another or pay a fine to Caesar?

And this is NOT socialism. If you don't see this than you don't know crap about socialism.

Because they want to pick the other people who's burdens they want to choose to bear. And they want to exclude immigrants, people of races other then themselves, gays, etc. Clan pacts like this just make the world more tribal.

yeah it was pretty clear from the get go that the clause Obama signed would be declared unconstitutional and gotten rid of. It was just a ploy by Stupak and the other pro-life dems to act like they were being pro-life. Why do you think most of the pro-life groups disowned Stupak after the fact?

Can't argue with that.

Goofus,

Try this link

http://www.samaritanministries.org/

Goofus

I belong to this program and it is a good one. Finally meeting my health needs without going to the poor house to do it. And Christian principles to boot, how can I go wrong.

maybe just not your lord. the results of following your lord, what you people leave in your wakes, is not very impressive. besides sweetening the koolaide doesn't change it - it's still koolaide.

Selective confusion has always puzzled me. Anyone who knows the Lord, the only Lord, would discover someone he has been looking for all his life. Someone he can trust without question, someone he can call on when things are going badly and someone he can pattern his life after that will bring peace and joy and the knowledge that He is in control and you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

I agree, the hypocrisy reeks.

clarke,

no, when coerced by the government it turns to marxism. this is voluntary.

btw, Christ never condemned the wealthy; if you read it carefully, it was what they did with their resources and wealth, and their heart attitude about it, that He spoke against. He did not condemn per se those with wealth.

If all people were as blessed as these folks, we wouldn't be having this discourse would we?

What is the reason we have ANY law wildweasel?

It is reasonable to compel action which is to the common good. Law in general is based on that fact.

What in your opinion is the practical difference between a "society" of christians banding together for the COMMON good, and the larger society?

wildweasel

Yes he did,in order to obtain wealth you had to take it from somone else,in order to obtain wealth,you have to step on people to do it,in order to obtain wealth,somone had to suffer. Im not sure if its David Koresh who wrote your Bible. Jesus was poor himself all the resources on earth were given to everyone to share equally,so tell me how somone could be wealthy without stepping on people to do it. He was about Equality for all, and not the US version of it.

...in order to obtain wealth you had to take it from somone else...

That seems a little black and white. Taking something from someone else is stealing. What about working hard and earning your wealth? Jesus never condemned anyone willing to work hard for a living. Sure Jesus was poor during his time on earth, but that doesn't mean being wealthy is always bad. God can work through someone that is wealthy to bless other, be it donations, sponsorship, or some other means of philanthropy.

JOE-435839

So those who tended flocks, worked in carpentry, crafted goods to trade for other things they needed, etc were taking it from someone else and stepping on people and making them suffer to do it? That doesn't make sense.

The fact you have internet access means you must be doing the same thing to afford some service that costs more than an entire months worth of food in some parts of the world, right?

Jesse

The land never belonged to the elitists,the land was given to everyone to split equally,and so when somone build something on a piece a land,i didnt agree to sell my part to them so yes it is stealing. Money is another resource along with all resources that were given to everyone equally.Go ahjead and pray to David Koresh because its people like you who have hi jacked Christianity.

Dont give me this crap of working hard,everyone who works ,works hard except the rich wherew everyone does there work for them.

Allen

I agree with you about even people who work are considered rich,but do you honestly think that Jesus would punish handicapped or retarded people? No so all the money all the resources of all the world are to be split among everyone equally.I stated earliear that anyone who lives in the US is living in 1 big sin every day,but those in 3rd world countries sin but not conastantly like us.

Clan socialism. It's socialism within a specific group. Mormons have been doing this kind of thing with money (not health care) for a long time. It's pick your socialist group.

Ya, a big stick and a swift kick and we're on our way. Yup, gov. is our friend. Tax me to death for a system that I'm probably not qualified to receive help if I'm too old and then penalize me if I don't want to participate. Yup, gov is our friend.

russ

that was probably translated by an elitist,plus Christ wasn't born in the old testament. The Bible isnt the word,its been translated throughout times but who really knew what these words meant.

Pick and choose, I bet there is also a verse telling you to help your brother in need.

But then again Christians love to pick and choose their verse to forward their views while disregarding those verses that contradict them.
One would think a omnipotent God would have better skills are writing a book that couldnt be misunderstood or taken out of context.

So if there is contradictory bible verse the one that suits you best is the one to choose Pirate?

You can't even produce one and yet you're telling these people how their religion should work? How about you do some of the heavy lifting and prove them wrong or are you afraid that you won't have a leg to stand on? How about you hold back on condemning their God until you can prove your own point instead of "betting" that they're wrong?

And the atheists also like to pick and choose what is moral and immoral on their own whim. You can't kill a mass murderer or rapist but you can kill a child because it's not born? No, there's no hypocrisy there. Not at all.

What about if people are too crazy to take care of themselves? Christianity does not deal very well with serious mental illness. It's a big hole in the theology. It is very difficult to draw a line and say, this mentally ill person is unable to work, and this other person, just a small bit healthier is just lazy.

You people need to take a hard look at yourselves and stop criticizing others. Christians have never claimed to be perfect, if they were they wouldn't have needed Christ to die on the Cross. Truth is truth whether you like it or not and all the rhetoric that is spewed on this site will not change that. If you've got a question about it why don't you get a hold of a Christian and ask and try to do it with a open mind, you might actually find what you've been looking for.

Not an accurate statement.

They are not doing it for themselves, they are doing it for each other, exactly what the government proposes.

No clarke, read this again.....

participants agree to support each other — and to pay each others’ medical bills.

Unlike the gov't plan that forces you to participate or pay a fine, no one is forcing these people to pay.

To be a citizen of the United States you agree to pay a share of taxes. No one is forcing people to stay a citizen, remember, so by remaining here and getting the benefits of citizenship you tacitly agree. Those taxes go to help the community at large in some way. So in a sense, Americans already agree to support each other, except for those among us who feel like they shouldn't have to and still feel like they deserve to get the benefits of membership. I guarantee that these co-ops, both secular and denominational, have rules about dead beats that they enforce. From my point of view the government is acting like a huge co-op that we all have a stake in, sink or swim. Pay to play either way, big or small it's all the same.

clarke, are you really claiming that a religious group came by and FORCED you to join this program or you will be visited regularly to pay a fine? Somehow I doubt that.

clarke, what doggonit said was accurate. These people took it upon themselves to do for themselves instead of forcing the government to do it for them. They agreed and those who didn't agree have the option of not joining. This isn't the case in what is going on with Obamacare.

But, yes, you'll just keep twisting it even though a 10 year old can see the fundamental difference. You look like a fool for spouting your illogical rebuttal.

Note: These groups are not taking everybody!!!! They are leaving out people with mental illness, and serious health problems. It's just like private school. Private schools only take students with normal learning capabilities, and no serious behavioral problems. As a result, they have higher test scores and don't have to hire specialists in developmental delay and behavioral issues. Then everyone say private schools are better and less expensive. It's like comparing apples and oranges. This kind of group policy is the easy way out, they are taking care of the easier cases. I'll be a family with seriously mentally ill children is asked to leave the group, or they just leave because it's to embarrassing to reveal the problem and ask for health.

They're not exempt at all.

Every member of the U.S. Congress, even one who served less than one term and was kicked out for malfeasance, gets lifelong free medical care, courtesy of the taxpayers. Wouldn't you think that at least one Republican congressman would turn it down to express his fear and hatred of "government-run health care"? Think again.

clarke ong

They're not exempt at all.

You can thank a Republican for that. It was an amendment to the Democrat version to make this change.

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Sen Chuck Grassley of Iowa did that. However, notice under (II) that it can include the current FEHBP as a form of insurance they are mandated to have. It simply says they have the option to drop the taxpayer funded one that they wrote all of the provisions for or go with the one they wrote for everyone else.

I don't want my tax dollars allowing as many 9/11 style attacks as the terrorist groups can put together either. The constitution REQUIRES the taxpayer $$ be used in national defense. It does not REQUIRE one to buy health insurance.

Do you even realize that one single plane that hit the twin towers killed so many people that we haven't even reached double that # yet in US troops killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined? One more 9/11 style attack would bring the # of civilian deaths up back higher than the # killed in 9 yrs in 2 wars. Is that what you want?

The "already living?"

Most parts of--and within--the body are 'already living' (including bacteria within waste, to put it mildly).

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body. It is a living organism within the woman's body (what a great trust by nature!). Proof: (stated simplistically, with rare exceptions): Take any part of the body (finger, ear, etc.); cut it off; it can often be kept 'living' for quite some time if nourished (including organs for transplants); remove the nourishment and it dies. As part of the/a body, after detachment, it cannot sustain itself. A fetus--however--is nourished within the mother's body by the mother; after birth, this 'other being' is nourished by others until it can nourish itself. In other words, after 'detachment" from the mother's body, it eventually becomes self-sustaining (as stated before, with rare exceptions). Can anyone say that this 'other being' is physiologically part of the mother's body (excepting genetics, in which case this 'other being' is also part of the father's body)?

Wendy here is another, people say they dont want their tax dollars wasted on supporting abortions, but they would have no problem denying coverage for poor people with illnesses that could be terminal without treatment.
This also covers illegal's, from a humanity viewpoint they should have no problem making these people well (just for the record I am against healthcare for illegal's unless its life threatening) after all they are humans as well.

Conservative believe that it's OK to kill people that have been born, particularly if they are about 14 years of age or older, in war, or criminal justice or in some kind of self-defense. Only the unborn are protected because of being "innocent" or something like that. Liberals have more respect for people who are here, and who are dealing with the problems this life brings to them. Liberals are compassionate. Conservatives are rule-abiding.

You say you don't want tha gov'ment's nose in your healthcare, in your business, but you do not walk the way you talk; all of your talk is contridicted by the way you live your life and push your opinions on others. A woman has the right to make her own decisions in her own healthcare - sometimes the decision is a hard one, but it's still her decision, her business. You have no right putting your nose in any female's healthcare for any reason. You have no right to take her freedom of choice away whether you agree with her or not.

The freedom of choice for a woman is law. It became law because so many women were dying in non-clinical settings with the abortions performed by mainly men who were not doctors; they were called "mechanics". Many women were so desperate that they used coat hangers and knitting needles. Many bled out before they could get to a hospital - where they were treated for medical conditions in private. Many, many died. The very rich flew to Europe for treatment in clean medical settings. The rest of the women in America were on their own. So many "good women" from "good families" were dying from the botched procedures or filthy conditions that the law was passed. It was epidemic. The stigma placed on those who were single and pregnant at the time was horrible, hateful. The stress of those old attitudes has been lessened since it is actually easier to rear a child as a single parent now - but without any help from those who think a woman should not have a choice - the same judgemental thinking from back in the day. Simple biology of any animal includes the stages of viable life. But besides that, a female human being's body is her own. It is not anyone else's business what her decisions are even about. The law was passed out of concern and compassion. It is not an easy decision and to have to make it with complete strangers trying to get in a person's business while she is having to make that decision is obtrusively abhorrible. You can disagree all you want to, but the decision is not yours.

I do agree that a females body is her own, except when she is pregnant. At that point her body belongs to the child, and she is responsible to make decisions that are healthy for her as well as the child.

As far as LAW is concerned, do you not agree that it is fairly hypocritical of the government to make abortion legal, while making it illegal for a woman to take drugs that can harm an infant, and even charge her with child abuse before the child is born, or charge men with two counts of murder for mudering a pregnant woman. I don't condone these actions by any stretch of the imagination, however I don't feel that it can be both ways.

This is a moral issue, and like many other moral decisions of this magnitude is not for merely one woman that does not want a child to make. The rights of the unborn child must be considered. It is not okay for me to murder my wife to get out of an unwanted marriage, but we can kill her child to get out of an unwanted pregnancy.

How selfish this country is becoming truley astounds me.

Her body is her own just like your body is your own. Her medical decisions are not for you to make.

It is amazing how many men jump all over this. Why? Does it draw those women who also like to get into other people's business to you; do they think you are "just wonderful"? Why aren't these men making noise about the fathers of born children who do not provide for them emotionally much less in any other way? Where are you when men target single mothers as they try to rear their children. You people disappear for children - where are you after they are born? You want to throw away sick, older people because you consider them useless burdens on society. Most of you are for the death penalty. You make no sense. Act out for the abandoned, unparented, and abused kids and then maybe you will have some credibility. You are the selfish ones - you want to impose what you think on everyone else!

Dorrit

A mans body doesnt carry something that was produced by both,so when pregnant her body is his body also,so yes he has a say on medical decisions. Abortions should be outlawed like in every other civilized society,as should the death penalty,and as should war. No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

JOE-

WTF?? Abortion is LEGAL in all other civilized nations. As a man I get sick of listening to men pontificate on abortion like they should have a say. It's the woman's perogative. period. Be glad you don't have to make such a decision and live and let live. Every new child is a huge burden on the Earth's resources and we are already way overpopulated. The irony that every life is "special" when clearly the actions of humans totally and utterly contradict this, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for the abortion debate. We are living creatures, same as all others, and compete for resources. As long as you are willing to eat meat, step on a bug, drive a car, etc, etc, etc, then the whole "life is sacred" argument is bunk. It comes back to the pernicious "Great Chain of Being" idea. Where somehow humans rank just below "Angels" on the "sacred scale". Nonsense. We are just another evolved creature. If life is so sacred, why does "God" feel the need to waste millions of POTENTIAL lives with each ejaculate?? Trillions of POTENTIAL lifes are being wasted by teenage boys around the globe each day.

I can hear it now. "It's God's will and part of his plan". Then each abortion must be part of his "master plan" then too by that logic. Or esle "God" is helpless to prevent it. See, omnipotence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive and contradictory. But religious people tend not to think things through to it's logical end.

So God is allowing thousands of abortions daily and letting ALL teenage boys throw away trillions of potential lives daily....hmmm...Again, I can hear it now "God gave us freewill so it's our fault". Great logic. God "creates" us wholly, with all desires, then requires we follow impossible instructions that run counter to the reasoning brain "he" gave us. I see. It's all a sick test for God's amusement. The dead babies, wars, hunger, poverty, etc. A test for the "afterlife" where we must NOT use logic and reason but abide by faith and willfully ignore the contradactions, circular reasoning, and unfalseafiable dogma it spews!

Joe --

Are those the civilized countries who offer universal health care, twelve weeks of paid maternity leave, subsidized day care? Do you see at all that things like these might mitigate the number of abortions? Do you think women have an abortion because it's fun? Do you think at all about the conditions that a poor woman with multiple children has to face every day, every night, every meal? Do you know how many children go hungry and ill, and untreated for illness, in this great "free" society?

Your attitude about the single sperm that fertilized an egg is so touching -- will you force those temporary "owners" of the woman's "slave" body to pay child support for their little sperm's results?

Typical male right-wing idiocy. All about control, and nothing about compassion.

There is NO social network for pregnant women in this "civilized" country.

And you don't have the right to decide ANYTHING for me. Thank God.

So, what do you sincerely think we should do with those who are maybe poor, sick, homeless, weak, downtroden, unlucky, and/or old?

Sounds like what the Republicans have been wanting: death panels. The ones who follow Christianity seem to think they get to decide who, how, when, and where they get to act out their Bible teachings about compassion, love, etc. They demand that those they help believe as they do. But then, they are trying to strike the basic compassion and loving teachings from the Bible like they try to control the facts of reality and history.

In fact, when I consider all these "Christian" Republicans' actions and words, it is beginning to sound like the Salem witch hunts and McCarthyism all rolled into one.

I am Unaffiliated, but because the Republican Party has been hijacked, I know I will never vote Republican again in my lifetime. You can't trust 'em. They will say and do anything to get elected, but they really want us to go back to the 18th century when reality rests in the 21st Century.

No, I just feel that it is the individuals responsibility to help these people through organizations like the Shriners children hospital, the salvation army, the goodwill, and other local charities.

A little OT but the Salvation Army has some policies I dont like, and Goodwill provides low wage jobs to felons, but dosent seem to provide them with any assistance in bettering themselves from that point on. I dont donate cash or used items to either one of these charities. The same poor people who seek assistance from GW or SA are the same people who shop in their thrift stores, which BTW they charge way too much for used furniture ect. We have a free cycle store here in Baltimore that helps people obtain the daily living items that they need, for free. I would think twice about donating anything to organizations that price gouge the same people they are "trying" to help. Also as a poor inner city child, the Salvation Army used to take us out to a summer camp every year, now they only take their own members children, which means many inner city kids are not getting the experience of summer camp.

As a Health Insurance Claims Adjuser, I feel that these co-ops are a good idea, I just wish their was some that didnt have the "faith-based" strings attatched. Anything that gives people options is better, because right now if you are above 200% of the poverty line, but still living paycheck to paycheck, health insurance is a problem for you, even if you have it. Trying to pay 50.00 copay everytime you go to A specialist, or a 2000.00 out of network deductible.......

Bottom line, the people who are griping about Healthcare reform are the ones who can afford to pay all the extras, or are uninformed.

If all the churches and non-profits really helped, year round rather than just at holidays, we would never need to consider legislation for compassionate care. I keep hearing "let the churches do it" - well, go ahead - do it! - been waiting to see that since I was a kid!

Why should I think that the un- and under-educated, the mentally ill, the learning or emotionally disabled, the ones who never got over PTSD after childhood or wars, the ones who have no families, the alcoholics and other druggies, the desperate ones, and the ones who are simply down on their luck and depressed would get any compassion from do-gooder church ladies who judge the people they brag about helping with a paper bag lunch or Thanksgiving meal? The same ones who never even volunteer for meals on wheels are going to suddenly devote time and effort and maybe a piece of their cold compassion and god forbid, money, to help them? You think if someone is dressed in layers to keep warm and has no place to shower or brush their teeth while they are trying to keep from getting mugged or raped and are suffering from exhaustion will be accepted as "qualified" for their help? And what is the help? How is it coordinated? How long will it last? How much more is spent on the church building fun or "missions"?

They can create any program to help themselves, but never others - especially if the others are deemed as inferior.

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

This is the amendment by Republican Chuck Grassly which specifically addresses mandatory congressional enrollment in the exchange plan.

Yes Mr. Democrat. Thank you for demonstrating that the liberals had to be challenged on this issue. I was truley hoping that you would be able to put this together for yourself. If you allow the liberals of this nation to have their way it will be nothing more than a Communist country where there are truly the powerful and rich, and then the poor with nothing in between

What a pantload russ.

Congress and staffers are specifically REQUIRED to use the same healthcare bill as anyone is.

Eat your words.

Admit you were wrong.

If you have the integrity to do so.

As a matter of fact YOU have the ability to not participate in the exchanges if you so choose.

Congress does NOT have that priviledge, they MUST participate.

You are so misinformed about EVERYTHING.

I was not wrong, and there is no need to be rude. Yes congress is NOW required to do so after the amendment was made. There are 5 members however that are still exempt. But look the conservatives you hate so much are the ones that passed the ammendment.

And to be honest they are exempt. Do they receive free healthcare for life? YES. Then will they ever have to find health insurance they can afford or pay a fine if they don't? NO

So be honest with yourself. The bill does not effect them now does it.

Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.

the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and "catastrophic" coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.

Those who don’t like their coverage may switch to another plan during a yearly "open season" period. To help with the choices, FEHBP conducts an annual "satisfaction survey" of each plan with more than 500 members and publishes the results.

Like other large employers, the government pays a large share of the cost of coverage. On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.
Congress doesn't get free healthcare at all, not while in office, nor afterwards.
Another lie exposed russ.
Got any more?

Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.

Got any more?

yep. I do. http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/01/03/congress-getting-a-pay-raise-how-about-you.htm

Some say they work hard for the money, and unless they pass a bill rejecting it, members of the U.S. Congress will get $4,700 cost-of-living (COLA) raise beginning in January 2009.

That's $391.67 per month. $391.67 for the more expensive one less the $356.59 you quoted indicates to ME that THEY aren't paying for it, we are.

They pay their own premiums. They get a paycheck, just like you. They are employed by the federal government.

Repeat after me: Congress has to pay for their insurance just like me! They don't get free lifetime healthcare!

Now, was that so hard?

Stop lying and twisting.

You have no facts. Oh and by the way, Congress got no cost of living raise for the last 2 years.

RavenA

Amen.

Yeah & that includes the Amish. Lived among them for over 30+ yrs. before retiring. Does anyone remem ber that they collected over several MILLION $ when those little girls were killed & injured? I never heard about them giving it back. Think what it will cost for a lifetime of care for those in wheelchairs? And they took car rides to Philly to get to their kids in the hospitals they were flown to.

Funny how neccessity is a really tough mother! so much for "no man is an island."

RayvenA

I sounds like these Christians only want to help other Christians. That isn't very Christ-like at all. If you don't go to church three times a week and provide proof, you can't be part of the co-op. Looks like forced religion to me, and bribery. IMO, they are arrogant elitists.

Noone is forcing you to join this group or go to church. Go start your own where the requirement is to be a public Christian basher 3X per thread if you want.

They stated that the woman with cancer negotiated the bill down to 60k, which means someone NOT in the co-op, like we tax payers, footed the rest of the bill. The hospital and doctors passed that financial loss onto to someone. Why was the amount negotiated down? Did they find someone on the inside who did them a favor because they were a Christian too? If so, that is incredibly unethical.

Nothing but pure and total speculation with no evidence whatsoever to your claims. My dentist negotiated the price down on my wisdom teeth being removed because my dental insurance wouldn't cover the entire amount. I'm sure he's running up to Uncle Sam right now to ask for you personally to pay extra taxes for it as we speak.....*sarcasm*.

This co-op thing sounds like a scam to me. What's going to happen when they age and more of them starting getting seriously ill? What about nursing care for the elderly? They may not have enough money to pay all those bills and then what will happen? You and I will have to foot the bill. I do not think religious groups such as this should get any kind of exemption.

That's just silly. You could make the same argument against normal insurance or the Obamacare insurance. What's going to happen when they age? What's going to happen when their children and others join? The better question is, who's going to foot the bill for EVERYONE once government gets done running the health care system just like they do Social Security and Medicare?

Yes, I'm sure somewhere down the road someone will run a scam. I'm sure it's probably already happened. That's the reality of humanity, people do stuff like that. However, That doesn't change that a lot of what happens in it is genuine and good. We don't claim we are immune from corruption, we just chose to trust people despite the fact that they will let us down. If you want to be cynical you can do so without putting words in our mouths.

There is something very right about this idea of being personally responsible, even if it is a vulnerable thing. It's good for us to give to others deliberately.

Well, that makes sense.

Her church members that choose to pay it, and can choose not too by attending a different church.

I simply do not want my country perverted to the point where I have to leave it. I also don't want my children to have too grow up in a country or world that teaches them to depend on others for everything, and everything is a right.

I simply do not want my country perverted to the point where I have to leave it.

Funny, I thought the same thing when GW was in office!

No, from your statement you just wanted to have a country where the government provides you with everything that you need so you are free to spend what is left over on what you want. It is not your governments responsibilty to provide everything for you, or to ease any guilt you may feel for being wealthy. You should do those things for yourself, and leave government issues small and managable

I simply do not want my country perverted to the point where I have to leave it.

that's exactly how I felt when GWB was president. I don't feel that way anymore. I am happy with the healthcare changes and I will always support them, and I already have good insurance for my family.

BUT when hard times come and I am laid off yet again and stuggling to find work that brings me the benefits necessary to own a house and raise a family I will be damn glad to know there is a safety net to catch me... AND THAT IS WHAT I VOTED FOR AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT!

A safety net is one thing, but entitlement programs are another.

Funny thing is that this is exactly the type of stuff Bill Clinton called for in one of his state of the union speeches. He stated that the church and other faith based and community orgs needed to get involved more and aid their own. He was right, and the article is too. That is exactly what God askes of us. Now that it is being done, people are mocking it. Crazy....As Christians, we are always told to keep our religion to ourselves. We are doing that with these types of programs, and are still being told we are wrong. Maybe some of these lib posters that think the govt. is the holy grail, should look a little harder at their own hypocrisies and leave Christians alone.

I agree, to me government is a necessary evil. We have laws to right wrongs, to police. We need healthcare because charity, even in this country, doesn't cover it. We expect the government to pick up our slack when we aren't responsible for each other. Any move toward a renewal of personal responsibility is a good thing in my book. I would rather give to others myself than pay through the government.