Christian Radio Ad Pushing Universal Healthcare Harnesses Local Faith-Based Influence

Nice post, thanks for writing!

seolace of AL 9:54PM May 05, 2010

+1

soundtracks of AL 7:27AM July 17, 2009

Living in the Bible belt, I'm surrounded by Christians that often forget the foundations of their faith when it comes to the topic of health care because it may cost them a dime or two more so that we all benefit. Thanks for offering the reminder.

How health care services are offered and paid for in our country never ceases to amaze me. For what other product or service would two individuals pay such dramatically different prices? As a self-employed individual, I do have health care coverage but can only afford a plan with a $10,000 deductible that also does not cover preventative care. So, an annual mammogram costs me $400 out-of-pocket. Yet, my neighbor employed at a big company with more generous health care insurance may only have to pay a co-pay of $20 or $30.

What if we had to purchase bread and milk and coffee based on our choice of employment? Would *anyone* sign up for that system?

Julie Sullivan of TX 9:02AM May 29, 2009

I'm glad that liberal Christians are finally finding their voice after two decades of allowing the radical political/ religious right to dominate the media with their message of exclusion and anger.

To Robert of NC, it's fine to oppose socialism, but a little fact check is in order.

First, I would suggest that you drop the references to fascism when talking about either socialism or the current administration. In most definitions and previous examples of fascism, socialism is not the preferred economic system.

In addition, all previous fascist societies have been anti-union, anti-gay, and strongly against the mixing of races and ethnic groups. I can think of American political entities that match that description, but President Obama and the Democrats seem to be a poor fit.

As far as communism goes, there are so many definitions that throwing 'communist' out there as a scare word is pretty useless unless you happen to touch a nerve with some old McCarthyites. If you aren't talking about 1950's Red Scare communists, what are you talking about? Hippie communes? Kibbutzim?

Further, your statement that "the only (socialist) dictates so far have been to auto companies and banks" is wrong on a couple levels. It's true that the U.S. government effectively owns large parts of the banking industry, and, given the incompetence and excesses of the private sector bank managers, it's a legitimate question as to whether the president should keep his promise to divest as soon as is practical, but that is what he has promised.

Oh, by the way, the first round of bank asset purchases happened under the notorious socialist, George W. Bush.

The government has not, however, directly invested in the car companies, but has, instead, given them a series of loans. Terms of a possible Fiat - Chrysler deal could result in some of those loans being converted into an 8% direct stake in Chrysler. If that happens, the White House has said they will not play a role in the management of the company. I'm guessing they'd divest there, too.

What is most wrong about your statement, though, is the implication that, before this current crisis, there weren't any socialist institutions in the United States. A common definition of socialism refers to "state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". By that definition, our public roads are state socialist entities. Employee-owned businesses are cooperative socialist entities, and your church, unless it's owned by an individual, probably is, too. Social Security is obviously a socialist institution, and, since cops protect the means of production and distribution, so is your police force.

Even Ron Paul wants to keep the cops around, so that makes him a semi-socialist, I guess.

We are all socialists. The only question is where to draw the line.

jimatmadison of WI 8:10PM May 23, 2009