Federal government intervention or not?

I suspect one of the reasons a majority of people are opposed to health care reform as currently proposed by the federal government, specifically H.R. 3200, is the fact that it grants too much authority to them over the most personal matters, those best left to individuals, families or at worst the states.

Obama said during a February 2008 debate, "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.

Obama also said during an April 2007 debate that he should have fought to cut off Schiavo's food and water earlier. "And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to pursue arguments in federal court."

As gut-wrenching as that whole situation was to me at the time and as much as I still shake my head in disbelief that government at all levels failed to protect this innocent life, I bring it up again only to make this point: Obama was opposed to federal government intervention in a health care situation worthy of it, when a citizen was denied due process by Florida's state courts who ordered the removal of food and water, but he is now in favor of federal government intervention in a health care situation where the Constitution grants them no right whatsoever so to do.

Are the President and Congress people of their word? They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Central to this is doing only what it allows and refraining from what it does not allow. Behold some of the very recent, relatively small programs taken on by the federal government, such as stimulus checks and cash for clunkers, that have, to be kind, been mismanaged. What makes them think they can manage our $2+ trillion health care system, even with its current imperfections, any better than we the people? They have yet to earn my confidence.

Charity

I heard a talk-radio host this past week chastise one of his callers that, as someone who goes to church, he should be ashamed of himself for not supporting government-run health care reform...or is it health insurance reform now. The host suspected the caller was a Christian but was actually a Jew. The point was that he read and believed in the Bible, or at least some portion thereof.

I was left with the impression that the teachings of the Bible should guide policy-making, or our voice and vote, and more specifically justify government-run health care. Now, I thought we religious people were supposed to keep our faith out of the public square. (Maybe the biggest example is abortion. People in the pro-life movement abhor abortion because it takes an innocent human life which the government is supposed to protect at all levels of development, but that's Biblical.) When, if at all, should the Bible guide policy-making? Is it a violation of the ACLU's beloved "wall of separation", a phrase Thomas Jefferson coined in a personal letter to a church not a clause of the Consitution, to use the teachings of the Bible to justify public policy?

The host believed in taxation to support those in need; the caller believed, as do I, in individual charity, not in mandated charity, to support those in need. (Is it really charity if it's mandated? Give to those in need or go to prison. Well, let me think about it.) The caller also believed in individual responsibility and was then asked where in the Bible that was taught. He could not immediately cite a verse, but now that it's acceptable use the Bible to justify our positions in the policy-making, at least for this debate, here are just a few of the many exhortations to work and to give to those in need.

Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4

He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5

He who works with his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment. Proverbs 12:11

Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slavery. Proverbs12:24

The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Proverbs 13:4

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23

He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Epesians 4:28

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 14:31

He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done. Proverbs 19:17

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 1 Thess 4:11-12

So should the teachings of the Bible guide policy-making? Yes, in the sense that they should guide its adherents heart, voice and vote whether they be citizens or politicians and in the same way that the Koran would guide a Muslim citizen or politician.

As a Christian, I feel that it's the mandate of the individual, not the government, to support those in need whatever the need may be. Some of us may be discouraged by our lack of money to do so, but wouldn't we all have more of it if the government at all levels would not take so much. Even if money is tight, we have an even more valuable and personal resource...time.

Extreme vs. mainstream speech

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said Republican operatives and special interests are funding and organizing these groups in an effort to stop Obama's top domestic priority...health care reform also described by me and others as the public option, government-run health care, single-payer health care or universal health care.

"The right wing extremists' use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are," he said. "This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 ... and it is bound to backfire again."

How many times was Bush depicted as a devil by left wing extremists as some Congressman (TX Rep. Doggett) are now being depicted? Remember a few years ago when Hugo Chavez spoke to the UN, right after Bush had spoken, and described the residual smell of sulfur?

How many times was Bush hung in effigy by Iraq war protesters both in this country and across the world as are some Congressman at these townhalls?

How many times, prior to both the 2000 and 2004 elections, was Bush's National Guard service questioned by his opponents as Obama's citizenship is now being questioned by members of both parties? It's not the facts that matter only the seriousness of the charge, right?

Remember when IL Senator Durbin described the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag? How many times did the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein refer to Bush as Hitler during his trial?

I thought all of these things were out of the mainstream prior to the last two election cycles but they seemed to serve the Democratic party pretty well? I sure thought they took the GOP to the cleaners. All of those words and actions were lauded as free speech. Will it backfire on the GOP or will it serve them well in the next election?