I think this is an important question. Do we just, "Let him die?"
Ron Paul suggests churches, friends, and family help pay for his expenses. Is that reasonable? Could churches really pay for the care of millions of uninsured Americans? Don't get me wrong, I wish they could. But most churches I know are struggling to survive on their current budget. I know that my family couldn't afford to pay for his care. It would financially wipe us out.
I don't see churches throughout the nation forming health insurance cooperatives (at least not in my neck of the woods). I do think it would be an interesting idea that rings of a more conservative and distributist philosophy.
But we need to focus on reality...
I'm not out to criticize a given philosophy of politics. But I do think this is an important question.
In the year 2011, a 33 year old man in good health chooses to opt out of health insurance because he can barely afford to pay bills and have health insurance. Then something terrible happens and he needs 6 months to a year of intensive care. Do we just let him die? If not, who pays for it?
It's not reasonable. Health costs are skyrocketing and some poor Joe Schmoo with a small handful of friends is up the creek without a paddle
Unless your friends or church is full of rich, giving people, you are in trouble
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Sounds like there are about 3-4 people that say "yeah".
Amazing how you and others want to tar an entire movement with this.
It speaks volumes about your "Christianity".
And believe it or not, there are plenty of Tea Party members that are totally non-religious.
Desperation from the left.
Ridiculous.
And how do we know they were saying "yeah" as an infirmative to the question and not rather "Yeah, that's what I want to know too"...and did any stand up after and go "and I'm a Christian too"?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
We dont know if it was teapartiers shouting/clapping for the idea of 'letting the young uninsured fellow die'. It could have been liberal plants - but I doubt it.
But the spirit throughout audience (teaparty sponsored debate) seemed to be lacking something. It was spooky.
Seems pretty clear to me some thought Ron Paul was ripping it to shreds by getting to the bottom of it all. That is why the people said "Yeah!". It was like throwing raw meat to a Libertarian Bloodhound.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I saw that...I heard 1 person go "Yeah"...and we don't even know if he was a Tea Party member. The audience was not just tea party members.
Assuming that the person was a Tea Party member, there are extremists in every group. That person DOESN'T speak for the entire group. No doubt, some folk sitting next to him strongly disagreed. The Tea Party is a varied group that believes strongly in individual liberties. One is the liberty to be as extreme as you wish (though such a one will not get far politically).
And how do we know they were saying "yeah" as an infirmative to the question and not rather "Yeah, that's what I want to know too"...and did any stand up after and go "and I'm a Christian too"?
Obviously there is no proof they were "Christian".
I get the feeling that the person was being extreme. But they could have meant they wanted to know too.
Linear Mode
