Is Socialism biblical?
- Thread starter Jesus4ever
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
In the Church where the disciples worked everybody shared with everyone else. Nobody went hungry.
Capitalism is all about GREED! Its all about having everything your greedy heart wants.
There is only one type of system that will work and that system is where God is in control of everything, not man.
Capitalism is all about GREED! Its all about having everything your greedy heart wants.
There is only one type of system that will work and that system is where God is in control of everything, not man.
J
we may have talking on PCs bought from a capitalism economy but he has a point about the apostles.
what ever kind of economy the apostles were living in they walked away from it to spend every moment with Jesus. Jesus showed them something far greater than man made possessions of this world will ever give.
what ever kind of economy the apostles were living in they walked away from it to spend every moment with Jesus. Jesus showed them something far greater than man made possessions of this world will ever give.
B
What was the different society structures in the bible from Genesis too through out both OT n NT.
physical social structures built to sustain life of the physical body like food,water, to shelter etc. because of a couple reasons we can't live in the physical for ever.
Life after the physical into the spiritual structure surely isn't the same for these needs to sustain the physical are no longer required in the spiritual. Possibly a Egalitarian style of living in the spirit realm, the word Egalitarian is the only modern terminology I can think of that would come close to describing spiritual society probably way Out in left field at that lol..
physical social structures built to sustain life of the physical body like food,water, to shelter etc. because of a couple reasons we can't live in the physical for ever.
Life after the physical into the spiritual structure surely isn't the same for these needs to sustain the physical are no longer required in the spiritual. Possibly a Egalitarian style of living in the spirit realm, the word Egalitarian is the only modern terminology I can think of that would come close to describing spiritual society probably way Out in left field at that lol..
E
you bring up a good point regarding Jesus returning
you now, looking at the OT, we see God had nothing against people owning land, houses, donkeys, sheep
the Bible also says that if you don't work...don't expect food
it also states that not looking after your family is worse than what a heathen would do
you have to take the entire Bible into consideration and not pick out what speaks to you
you now, looking at the OT, we see God had nothing against people owning land, houses, donkeys, sheep
the Bible also says that if you don't work...don't expect food
it also states that not looking after your family is worse than what a heathen would do
you have to take the entire Bible into consideration and not pick out what speaks to you
At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29)
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29)
here we see in the law that the entire tithe every 3 years was stored up to be used (as welfare) for the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows -- all those people who had no inheritance or means to provide for themselves.
this shows corporate (i.e. federal) responsibility for caring for the needs of the poor in the Mosaic law, not just individual responsibility.
so yes, socialism is Biblical, and not just 'encouraged' but mandated by the Law.
you don't have to like it. you can argue that people are corrupt so it wouldn't work. you can say America is not Israel so this doesn't apply.
but the question is whether it is Biblical or not - and it is. this scripture is, like all scripture, for our edification.
you can deny it, or argue against it, but since the express purpose here in the Law of effectively using Israel's tax revenue to care for the needy - including the immigrant needy - at the governmental level is "so that the Lord your God can bless you in all the work of your hands that you do" -- IMHO you're expressing a lack of faith in God to keep that promise to bless you by doing so.
i'm just going to leave this here, because it's clear enough to me what the Bible says. you guys have fun with it
Let's see. What is "absurd nonsense?"
First you berate me with the "intent of the American constitution." I guess you missed that I could care less about your constitution, because I am much more concerned about the Canadian constitution. You know, the country where I live.
Then you come at me with socialism being "unbiblical." Well, perhaps it is. But you have yet to post a single Bible verse supporting your point of view.
If you know real Biblical doctrine, then please share. Oh wait, there are no verses defending the modern construct of capitalism in the Bible. Still, I am open to hearing what the Bible has to say about this issue, from your point of view.
And waiting.... and waiting.....
I know you almost never post a single Bible verse, let alone enough verses to form a Biblical doctrine. I am glad you think you know where you are in your walk with God, but saddened by the fact that you never actually defend it with Scripture. I wonder if that is because you do not know the Bible well enough to actually quote it in defense of your opinions?
To others on this thread, who somehow think that Canadians are being "forced" to give our taxes to pay health care, you obviously didn't listen to what I said. Universal health care is our most cherished value. That means we are happy to put our money where our mouths are. We are glad we can pay a tiny bit more in taxes, so everyone gets access to health care. We also know that someday, we will need to use the system more and more, and would go bankrupt like so many Americans who have health care crises.
Here are some informative links to show why privatized medicine does not work.
"Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship."
"The answer is that as of 2007, a Harvard study shows that at least 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical bills. Even people with health insurance are filing bankruptcy. Insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pay, and out of pocket expenses cause medical bills to drown individuals and families in medical debt. Harvard also discovered that 75% of those filing bankruptcy for medical reasons had health insurance. It is clear that having health insurance is no guarantee against carrying debt related to health care."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
"Sometimes, it is not just medical bills alone that cause people to file bankruptcy. If a person is too ill to work, they will lose income, making it harder than ever to pay for medical bills. If people are forced to quit their job, that can mean they lose their health insurance as well.
The American Journal of Medicine reports that even well educated, middle class home owners are subject to overwhelming medical bills. People are forced to get a second mortgage on their home to pay their medical bills. Another problem is that because of medical bills, people are using credit cards to pay for day to day expenses such as groceries and gas. Doing so places individuals and families more and more in debt.
In 2007, the Commonwealth Fund discovered that 72 million Americans are struggling with medical bills. The Commonwealth Fund is an independent organization performing research on health care issues.
In 2010, the Commonwealth Fund learned that due to the slow economy and high unemployment, 24% of working adults said they had lost a job in the past two years. Losing a job also means losing health care benefits.
Law Dictionary: How Many Americans Go Bankrupt Due to Medical Purposes Each Year?
When I read these statistics, I am so grateful for universal health care. And grateful that we can contribute to help people have access to health care. So yes, a few people fall beneath the cracks, not in actual health care, but in loss of income because of job loss.
"Colleagues in Canada tell us that medical bills per se almost never cause bankruptcies in that country. The relatively small number of medical bankruptcies seems to be among people who suffer a sharp drop in income because of illness. Canada does not have a full disability and joblessness safety net. We’re planning a study with Canadian colleagues now to study this formally."
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/?_r=0
I had to go on disability from my job, for many years because of Rheumatoid Arthritis. I had supplementary provincial plans and my husbands' work plan for drugs, and despite huge medical bills for biologics, especially, I was not bankrupted, having a good work disability program, and the drug plans. (Of course, the same drugs in Canada cost so much less than in the US. I was on Rituxan, along with a friend in Chicago with RA. I paid $1800 each for 2 infusions, which worked out to be $25 company per infusion. Her medical insurance paid $70,000 for the two infusions.
$70,000
- 3600
=66,300 difference for the same exact drug and infusions. Someone is making big bucks as a result of your "free" enterprise system.
So why am I talking about health care? Well, besides schools, fire and police, and our military, medical is really our only socialized service.
So we like to care for people. Oh right, also caring for the poor. Another major issue. But I thought the US did care for the poor? Or am I mistaken in that? Most western nations do care for the poor, leaving us free to help those in third world countries who are truly poor. My husband and I like to buy a well every year in another continent to give clean water to people who do not have access to it. Of course that is not forced either! Just glad God has blessed us so we can afford to help others.
I appreciate all your quotes; you obviously took the time to look into this.
But cost is not the root reason why privatized heath care doesn't work in America. The gov. protections of monopolies is why it doesn't work in America. That's one reason some people take issue with Obama Care - it's treating the symptom, not the problem.
See my middle link in post 141. Insurance companies set the costs for our medical services, and they are going up at an exponential rate. Therefore, passing the cost to the taxpayer is not going to work long term, as the costs keep climbing.
Why do they climb? Because some big dogs got the gov. on their side, and the left side of the gov. doesn't address these issues in their "solutions." Obamacare or socialized healthcare, for our situation mind you, is like placing a bandaid over a gaping wound. It's not going to solve the problem.
Again, I'm saying the problem is those who set the prices, making things cost WAY MORE than they actually do, and doubling about every 9 nine years. The problem is laws that have been set in place, (despite older laws that makes this illegal) to cut competition and keep costs high.
In American, healthcare is so bad because it doesn't work like a free market should.
I haven't seen it like that. Medicaid sets prices so that even "Cadillac" insurance policies are not bound to pay more. I have that coverage, get a statement of benefits. It says I don't have to pay more than what the government has set for the basis of Medicaid/Medicare. I have neighbors who are excused of all charges due to low income, while I pay the approved maximum.
A natural result in this capitalistic economy of ours, which BTW still works magnificently for people who are willing to work enough to enter it, is a growing reaction to medical service price lowering, not increasing.
Every doctor's office I've been in the past few years have posters up that if your insurance is young enough to include ACA policies, or you are on Medicaid and even a growing list of Medicare policies, they will not accept new patients. Doctors had to relocate, change the name of their business, restructure within legal limits, to get off the welfare train. They are the clinics most nurses compete to work in.
People with good policies, who pay up their deductibles & copays, are favored patients who are providing the funds that allow medical personnel to earn a fair living, considering the price they pay to qualify, and the long hours (12 per shift plus a lot of overtime), even compelled to sleep on a cot a few hours to work another shift, etc..
Poor people can't contribute to the welfare of all people, seeing they are unable to support themselves well enough, apparently, to avoid bankruptcy over medical bills. A better idea is to reduce the numbers of poor people, favoring small businesses that can prosper near where people are available to work. But now the governments are caught in the bad habit
A way to avoid that calamity is to stay healthy, work steadily, obtain an employer-provided health care plan, then see those huge bills negotiated down from $200K to your part a mere $400, plus providers willing to take monthly payments rather than lose all income from bankruptcies. But way too many people now fear getting off welfare to take a job.
The only people I know who have been damaged from medical bankruptcies are people who lose their jobs, decline to continue their insurance, then get sick (or continue some condition) before qualifying for welfare. Then when a big bill is made there is no negotiator to haggle the prices down. If people could work, then get laid off, they should be able to jump right into at least enough work to keep up basic expenses to avoid financial collapse. All it takes often is simply go work out offers to creditors. A man came to me to negotiate a bill, and I hired him until he got his old job back. But, like my fishing buddy, he refuses to take a low paying job, holding out for his old high paying job. Meanwhile he is digging a deep hole pf poverty. I offered him a good job, but the work is very hard, too hard compared to managing a packaging plant.
A man should not even eat if he refuses to work. I can't sympathize with anyone who is capable of doing some job, but refusing to work. Our county has 1,100 unfilled jobs, most good ones, but require exposure to the outside, or on an assembly line, some requiring special skills. The problem is few people are willing to work if it means sweating.
2 Thess 3:9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
There's the Bible answer.
A natural result in this capitalistic economy of ours, which BTW still works magnificently for people who are willing to work enough to enter it, is a growing reaction to medical service price lowering, not increasing.
Every doctor's office I've been in the past few years have posters up that if your insurance is young enough to include ACA policies, or you are on Medicaid and even a growing list of Medicare policies, they will not accept new patients. Doctors had to relocate, change the name of their business, restructure within legal limits, to get off the welfare train. They are the clinics most nurses compete to work in.
People with good policies, who pay up their deductibles & copays, are favored patients who are providing the funds that allow medical personnel to earn a fair living, considering the price they pay to qualify, and the long hours (12 per shift plus a lot of overtime), even compelled to sleep on a cot a few hours to work another shift, etc..
Poor people can't contribute to the welfare of all people, seeing they are unable to support themselves well enough, apparently, to avoid bankruptcy over medical bills. A better idea is to reduce the numbers of poor people, favoring small businesses that can prosper near where people are available to work. But now the governments are caught in the bad habit
A way to avoid that calamity is to stay healthy, work steadily, obtain an employer-provided health care plan, then see those huge bills negotiated down from $200K to your part a mere $400, plus providers willing to take monthly payments rather than lose all income from bankruptcies. But way too many people now fear getting off welfare to take a job.
The only people I know who have been damaged from medical bankruptcies are people who lose their jobs, decline to continue their insurance, then get sick (or continue some condition) before qualifying for welfare. Then when a big bill is made there is no negotiator to haggle the prices down. If people could work, then get laid off, they should be able to jump right into at least enough work to keep up basic expenses to avoid financial collapse. All it takes often is simply go work out offers to creditors. A man came to me to negotiate a bill, and I hired him until he got his old job back. But, like my fishing buddy, he refuses to take a low paying job, holding out for his old high paying job. Meanwhile he is digging a deep hole pf poverty. I offered him a good job, but the work is very hard, too hard compared to managing a packaging plant.
A man should not even eat if he refuses to work. I can't sympathize with anyone who is capable of doing some job, but refusing to work. Our county has 1,100 unfilled jobs, most good ones, but require exposure to the outside, or on an assembly line, some requiring special skills. The problem is few people are willing to work if it means sweating.
2 Thess 3:9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. 13But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
There's the Bible answer.
Yes, Medicaid is insurance. Insurance sets prices. Across private and gov they set them to suit interests, not based on any actual costs.
In other industries, the cost of production, supplies, and labor factors into the cost of the product... not so with medical. Why is it that a standard delivery of a child in the 40s was less than 100, and today it is over 11000... for even a SHORTER STAY at the hospital? Nope, not inflation.
The $70 childbirth bill - CNN.com
This article doesn't speak to the problem, only mentions it in passing. But it gives figures that I wanted to bring forth.
I had an episode last year. I was in the hospital, no exaggeration, for a month. There were other documents, legal ones, that PROVES I was unstable. My husband obtained a private insurance policy in preparation for these bills.
Guess what? "We won't cover it" says insurance "because WE don't deem it medically necessary." WTH? So you're saying that because you don't want to foot a bill or negotiate one that is well over 30000, that you're just not going to cover it at all? Are you more learned than the doctor, than the medical examiner, are you more learned than them to say "yeah, you didn't really NEED to be there, much less it was a MONTH before the doctor decided you were well enough to leave, so we're not paying?"
This same insurance said they could buy me hearing aids. In my instability, I lost the last pair. Hearing aids range from about 4000 to 6000 a pair. This is kinda important for me in WORKING A JOB because then I can HEAR and be more receptive to orders. Guess what? The same insurance that said "yes we cover that" said "no we won't, cause we don't like that doctor (iow, not in the "network").
Now, you tell me: Why should my coverage be affected by who offers the service? Why should my options be limited for the EXACT SAME SERVICE, I mean, for the same product (the aids)? What if I think a doctor is more knowledgeable or likeable, and I don't want to go to another doctor? Why should YOU, oh insurance, decide FOR ME who I can and can't see?
This is why it doesn't work as a free market and allows this monopolistic pricing... you can't say to one hospital "your service is better, I'm going with you" because the INSURANCE has a say in who you can go to.
Oh and btw: Prices are not published. I know because I used to ask the cost of things before a service, and like "oh, you'll get the bill." So, I can't decide FOR MYSELF whether that MRI would be financially worth it to me, that you say I need?" NO OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA gets away with this.
The issue where the Constitution comes in, here, is I shouldn't be forced or coerced into buying a product, and I should be free to choose who I want to reward with my money... Insurance prohibits this, both private and gov. And by forced, I don't just mean Obamacare... I mean, I should be able to decide: "I want to go to this hospital vs this one because of quality of service and price" NOT "well, I have to go to this one even though the service is marginal, they don't listen to me, I feel like a cash cow, BUT if I want this service, insurance says this is the one."
Then perhaps what the gov needs to address is the limited mobility in our economy.
Now, I agree that many people just don't want to work... but for many, they don't want to work, they refuse to because their "hope is deferred."
You can't climb in this economy by hard work alone. For a fortunate few, this may work. For people from your generation, in a different social/economic climate, this may have worked.
For me personally, when I worked at McDonald's I got to where I worked hard, with precision and speed, and customer/manager alike praised how clean the lobby was... but, I had "resting ____ face" in other words, I didn't make customers feel warm. When I worked register, I wasn't going at sounding both friendly AND genuine. I worked hard on that, even got complimented for doing better on a review... but did I climb the ladder? No. But you bet your bottom dollar that few worked harder in little detail than I did. I would scrub dried ketchup off the floor - I wasn't afraid of getting on my knees, even. You may say "well, appealing to the customers is part of the work, so you didn't work hard."
Well, my point is hard work is a relative term. When multiple customers go out of their way to comment on a clean lobby, go out of their way to tell you personally "you're different, you don't walk mop around, I see you're always working" and one customer even buys you a new pair of work shoes cause they see you work... then that's hard work. Relative to that environment, that's hard work. So be careful when you say to someone "you're not getting anywhere because you don't work hard." It's precisely that mentality that discouraged me personally, like "well, I'm not advancing so I must not be doing anything right" despite clear evidence to the contrary.
~~~~~~
If I had to choose between taking a better job, and yet the gov. assistance puts me 500 dollars in the hole because of a SLIGHTLY better income (like .75 cent raise), then it is not worth it to me to try. Maybe you might criticize me, and say "Do with less so you can have more" but doing with less may mean the difference between scraping by or even getting evicted cos the rent and utilities don't change and I still have to pay them.
Before you criticize people for staying on welfare, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, and look at the GOV restrictions. For most people, and I certainly understand, the added stress of losing a lot of income to gain a little bit is not worth it. They stay on welfare.
When I started working at McDonald's, I was on gov assistance. I was on disability insurance and food stamps, and both Medicaid and Medicare, because of income. I started working, min wage, for about 30 hours a week. Now, I can't count on a fix set of hours, and they go down in the wintertime due to less demand and cutting labor. So, I may work 30 hours one month, then 10 hours the next. I have to factor that into paying for my stuff if I let go of insurance. I was willing to work, but it is not STABLE and STEADY work - this is why people feel the job is beneath them because it is NOT A SECURE SOURCE OF INCOME.
I sympathize, because I too thought (before I got married) "yeah I want to support myself" THEN I started thinking "how to pay for this and that" and I lost hope.
Do they have the skills? Do they have the social savvy in interviewing? Many employers won't hire someone because they didn't make the feel good, didn't impress them in the exact way they think they should. I read that many employers take issue with young folks not having manners.
In some cases, it's not about willingness or unwillingness to work... it's about not having the right skills and not even realizing you don't because you weren't taught them.
I can't tell you how many times I've gone in where "help was wanted" but MY help in particular wasn't. Maybe I didn't engage "correctly" in the interview. Maybe they had other applications that looked better. But I WASN'T "unwilling to work." If I may, unless you can read the heart or motivations of a young person, I wouldn't assume "they don't want to work" simply on the fact that they currently don't have a job.
Um, where has prices decreased? They may be negotiated by insurance with the hospital, but they haven't decreased.
This is the thing: To say to one person "you have insurance, you'll pay less" and to say to another person for the same service "you don't have insurance, you'll pay the full ten times we charge insurance before negotiating amount" is discriminatory.
Gov. insurance is more appealing to people because it really is more comprehensive. And being subsidized, it is cheaper.
Insurance REALLY should be held by people who want to protect themselves from LARGE costs in case of an emergency. I shouldn't need insurance for birth control, I shouldn't need it for my routine meds, I shouldn't need it for maintenance costs that I expect to pay for myself. Insurance, in the beginning, was not intended to be a catch all. Because it is a catch all, it is more expensive, because it covers more.
Maybe focus on bringing down the price fixing and monopolies so people can afford certain things without welfare insurance.
Well, yeah, they lose money! They charge insurance, insurance negotiates it down, iow, they lose profits they would otherwise have because gov. insurance is more comprehensive. Have people get on with private insurance, there's a good chance they'll pay out of pocket for some services because they have to be "in network."
The issue is MANY CAN NOT. Insurance is meant to be a buffer for the unexpected, so some people would rather take their chances than throw hundreds down the toilet every few months on a MAYBE something will happen.
So, a patient is favored for the money they put forth, rather than their need? This is the issue, this is what makes it sooooo corrupt... "buy this pill, for thousands a month, or hundreds in co-pay, IF IT IS COVERED IN THAT NETWORK, OR DIE."
I don't know where I'd be if it weren't for the laws set in place that emergency rooms can not turn you away because you can't pay. For that, I'm thankful, because at one point (and now via marriage) I didn't have a way to pay and I got treatment.
Really? I'm curious as to how the type of insurance affects the quality of work for these people. I really don't know.
Yes, apparently. You know what bankruptcy does to your purchasing power? How it looks when you need to draw a loan? Bankruptcy is so common, we hear about it so much that I think we've become desensitized to just how crippling it can be... unless you're facing it yourself, sit down and count the costs, then gov. assistance doesn't look so bad.
I agree.
Staying healthy isn't going to prevent that drunk driver from hitting me, that inadvertent fall from a ladder while working, that hospital stay because the vaccine didn't protect me from the flu, and so forth and so on.
Which excludes MANY jobs, including ones that OFFER benefits but getting around giving them by cutting your hours.
In other industries, the cost of production, supplies, and labor factors into the cost of the product... not so with medical. Why is it that a standard delivery of a child in the 40s was less than 100, and today it is over 11000... for even a SHORTER STAY at the hospital? Nope, not inflation.
The $70 childbirth bill - CNN.com
This article doesn't speak to the problem, only mentions it in passing. But it gives figures that I wanted to bring forth.
I had an episode last year. I was in the hospital, no exaggeration, for a month. There were other documents, legal ones, that PROVES I was unstable. My husband obtained a private insurance policy in preparation for these bills.
Guess what? "We won't cover it" says insurance "because WE don't deem it medically necessary." WTH? So you're saying that because you don't want to foot a bill or negotiate one that is well over 30000, that you're just not going to cover it at all? Are you more learned than the doctor, than the medical examiner, are you more learned than them to say "yeah, you didn't really NEED to be there, much less it was a MONTH before the doctor decided you were well enough to leave, so we're not paying?"
This same insurance said they could buy me hearing aids. In my instability, I lost the last pair. Hearing aids range from about 4000 to 6000 a pair. This is kinda important for me in WORKING A JOB because then I can HEAR and be more receptive to orders. Guess what? The same insurance that said "yes we cover that" said "no we won't, cause we don't like that doctor (iow, not in the "network").
Now, you tell me: Why should my coverage be affected by who offers the service? Why should my options be limited for the EXACT SAME SERVICE, I mean, for the same product (the aids)? What if I think a doctor is more knowledgeable or likeable, and I don't want to go to another doctor? Why should YOU, oh insurance, decide FOR ME who I can and can't see?
This is why it doesn't work as a free market and allows this monopolistic pricing... you can't say to one hospital "your service is better, I'm going with you" because the INSURANCE has a say in who you can go to.
Oh and btw: Prices are not published. I know because I used to ask the cost of things before a service, and like "oh, you'll get the bill." So, I can't decide FOR MYSELF whether that MRI would be financially worth it to me, that you say I need?" NO OTHER INDUSTRY IN AMERICA gets away with this.
The issue where the Constitution comes in, here, is I shouldn't be forced or coerced into buying a product, and I should be free to choose who I want to reward with my money... Insurance prohibits this, both private and gov. And by forced, I don't just mean Obamacare... I mean, I should be able to decide: "I want to go to this hospital vs this one because of quality of service and price" NOT "well, I have to go to this one even though the service is marginal, they don't listen to me, I feel like a cash cow, BUT if I want this service, insurance says this is the one."
Then perhaps what the gov needs to address is the limited mobility in our economy.
Now, I agree that many people just don't want to work... but for many, they don't want to work, they refuse to because their "hope is deferred."
You can't climb in this economy by hard work alone. For a fortunate few, this may work. For people from your generation, in a different social/economic climate, this may have worked.
For me personally, when I worked at McDonald's I got to where I worked hard, with precision and speed, and customer/manager alike praised how clean the lobby was... but, I had "resting ____ face" in other words, I didn't make customers feel warm. When I worked register, I wasn't going at sounding both friendly AND genuine. I worked hard on that, even got complimented for doing better on a review... but did I climb the ladder? No. But you bet your bottom dollar that few worked harder in little detail than I did. I would scrub dried ketchup off the floor - I wasn't afraid of getting on my knees, even. You may say "well, appealing to the customers is part of the work, so you didn't work hard."
Well, my point is hard work is a relative term. When multiple customers go out of their way to comment on a clean lobby, go out of their way to tell you personally "you're different, you don't walk mop around, I see you're always working" and one customer even buys you a new pair of work shoes cause they see you work... then that's hard work. Relative to that environment, that's hard work. So be careful when you say to someone "you're not getting anywhere because you don't work hard." It's precisely that mentality that discouraged me personally, like "well, I'm not advancing so I must not be doing anything right" despite clear evidence to the contrary.
~~~~~~
If I had to choose between taking a better job, and yet the gov. assistance puts me 500 dollars in the hole because of a SLIGHTLY better income (like .75 cent raise), then it is not worth it to me to try. Maybe you might criticize me, and say "Do with less so you can have more" but doing with less may mean the difference between scraping by or even getting evicted cos the rent and utilities don't change and I still have to pay them.
Before you criticize people for staying on welfare, LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, and look at the GOV restrictions. For most people, and I certainly understand, the added stress of losing a lot of income to gain a little bit is not worth it. They stay on welfare.
When I started working at McDonald's, I was on gov assistance. I was on disability insurance and food stamps, and both Medicaid and Medicare, because of income. I started working, min wage, for about 30 hours a week. Now, I can't count on a fix set of hours, and they go down in the wintertime due to less demand and cutting labor. So, I may work 30 hours one month, then 10 hours the next. I have to factor that into paying for my stuff if I let go of insurance. I was willing to work, but it is not STABLE and STEADY work - this is why people feel the job is beneath them because it is NOT A SECURE SOURCE OF INCOME.
I sympathize, because I too thought (before I got married) "yeah I want to support myself" THEN I started thinking "how to pay for this and that" and I lost hope.
Do they have the skills? Do they have the social savvy in interviewing? Many employers won't hire someone because they didn't make the feel good, didn't impress them in the exact way they think they should. I read that many employers take issue with young folks not having manners.
In some cases, it's not about willingness or unwillingness to work... it's about not having the right skills and not even realizing you don't because you weren't taught them.
I can't tell you how many times I've gone in where "help was wanted" but MY help in particular wasn't. Maybe I didn't engage "correctly" in the interview. Maybe they had other applications that looked better. But I WASN'T "unwilling to work." If I may, unless you can read the heart or motivations of a young person, I wouldn't assume "they don't want to work" simply on the fact that they currently don't have a job.
Um, where has prices decreased? They may be negotiated by insurance with the hospital, but they haven't decreased.
This is the thing: To say to one person "you have insurance, you'll pay less" and to say to another person for the same service "you don't have insurance, you'll pay the full ten times we charge insurance before negotiating amount" is discriminatory.
Gov. insurance is more appealing to people because it really is more comprehensive. And being subsidized, it is cheaper.
Insurance REALLY should be held by people who want to protect themselves from LARGE costs in case of an emergency. I shouldn't need insurance for birth control, I shouldn't need it for my routine meds, I shouldn't need it for maintenance costs that I expect to pay for myself. Insurance, in the beginning, was not intended to be a catch all. Because it is a catch all, it is more expensive, because it covers more.
Maybe focus on bringing down the price fixing and monopolies so people can afford certain things without welfare insurance.
Well, yeah, they lose money! They charge insurance, insurance negotiates it down, iow, they lose profits they would otherwise have because gov. insurance is more comprehensive. Have people get on with private insurance, there's a good chance they'll pay out of pocket for some services because they have to be "in network."
The issue is MANY CAN NOT. Insurance is meant to be a buffer for the unexpected, so some people would rather take their chances than throw hundreds down the toilet every few months on a MAYBE something will happen.
So, a patient is favored for the money they put forth, rather than their need? This is the issue, this is what makes it sooooo corrupt... "buy this pill, for thousands a month, or hundreds in co-pay, IF IT IS COVERED IN THAT NETWORK, OR DIE."
I don't know where I'd be if it weren't for the laws set in place that emergency rooms can not turn you away because you can't pay. For that, I'm thankful, because at one point (and now via marriage) I didn't have a way to pay and I got treatment.
Really? I'm curious as to how the type of insurance affects the quality of work for these people. I really don't know.
Yes, apparently. You know what bankruptcy does to your purchasing power? How it looks when you need to draw a loan? Bankruptcy is so common, we hear about it so much that I think we've become desensitized to just how crippling it can be... unless you're facing it yourself, sit down and count the costs, then gov. assistance doesn't look so bad.
I agree.
Staying healthy isn't going to prevent that drunk driver from hitting me, that inadvertent fall from a ladder while working, that hospital stay because the vaccine didn't protect me from the flu, and so forth and so on.
Which excludes MANY jobs, including ones that OFFER benefits but getting around giving them by cutting your hours.
Last edited:
Socialism is un-Biblical, per both OT and NT doctrine.
Communism is simply one type of Socialism, an extreme type.
Under Socialism, you have no inalienable rights, all your rights are subject to the state. Per God's Way, you have inalienable rights that are given every person determined by Him and not by man and cannot be taken away.
Under Socialism, your property rights are determined by the state and not by God. Per God's Way, property rights are protected and honored.
Under Socialism, the welfare state garnishes your wages and re-distributes that wealth according to its aims. Per God's Way, each person is responsible for alms to the poor and needy as they are able; how much we give and to whom is between us and God, not man. Thus the welfare principle of Socialism is like a dictatorship regarding wealth, and is liable to support unholy works using your garnished wages against your will, forcing you to financially support groups and institutions you normally would not support.
Under Socialism, even all types to a certain degree, and not just Communism, each person is meted out according to their needs, and not according to their labors. Per God's Way, each receives according to their labors, if you don't work, you don't eat.
There is a lesson in this per American history in the early Jamestown colony. The first winter many died of starvation because they held everything in common (i.e., Socialism). No matter how hard you worked, what you didn't need was taken and given to others regardless of how hard they worked. That created a situation of laziness, because it's against the idea of property ownership, so there's less incentive to work hard. The next year they changed their policy to if you don't work, you don't eat (God's Way like Apostle Paul taught). Whatever extra you labored for you got to keep to sell or trade. That year there was an over abundance and no one starved.
Under Socialism God's laws are subordinated to man's laws. This creates a position making it possible to violate or deny the inalienable rights provided by God in His laws. It allows man to interpret wickedness and evil instead of God, thus man usurping true understanding of how to deal with wickedness so as to create conditions conducive to peace and prosperity for the peoples.
Communism is simply one type of Socialism, an extreme type.
Under Socialism, you have no inalienable rights, all your rights are subject to the state. Per God's Way, you have inalienable rights that are given every person determined by Him and not by man and cannot be taken away.
Under Socialism, your property rights are determined by the state and not by God. Per God's Way, property rights are protected and honored.
Under Socialism, the welfare state garnishes your wages and re-distributes that wealth according to its aims. Per God's Way, each person is responsible for alms to the poor and needy as they are able; how much we give and to whom is between us and God, not man. Thus the welfare principle of Socialism is like a dictatorship regarding wealth, and is liable to support unholy works using your garnished wages against your will, forcing you to financially support groups and institutions you normally would not support.
Under Socialism, even all types to a certain degree, and not just Communism, each person is meted out according to their needs, and not according to their labors. Per God's Way, each receives according to their labors, if you don't work, you don't eat.
There is a lesson in this per American history in the early Jamestown colony. The first winter many died of starvation because they held everything in common (i.e., Socialism). No matter how hard you worked, what you didn't need was taken and given to others regardless of how hard they worked. That created a situation of laziness, because it's against the idea of property ownership, so there's less incentive to work hard. The next year they changed their policy to if you don't work, you don't eat (God's Way like Apostle Paul taught). Whatever extra you labored for you got to keep to sell or trade. That year there was an over abundance and no one starved.
Under Socialism God's laws are subordinated to man's laws. This creates a position making it possible to violate or deny the inalienable rights provided by God in His laws. It allows man to interpret wickedness and evil instead of God, thus man usurping true understanding of how to deal with wickedness so as to create conditions conducive to peace and prosperity for the peoples.
J
At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29)
(Deuteronomy 14:28-29)
here we see in the law that the entire tithe every 3 years was stored up to be used (as welfare) for the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows -- all those people who had no inheritance or means to provide for themselves.
this shows corporate (i.e. federal) responsibility for caring for the needs of the poor in the Mosaic law, not just individual responsibility.
so yes, socialism is Biblical, and not just 'encouraged' but mandated by the Law.
you don't have to like it. you can argue that people are corrupt so it wouldn't work. you can say America is not Israel so this doesn't apply.
but the question is whether it is Biblical or not - and it is. this scripture is, like all scripture, for our edification.
you can deny it, or argue against it, but since the express purpose here in the Law of effectively using Israel's tax revenue to care for the needy - including the immigrant needy - at the governmental level is "so that the Lord your God can bless you in all the work of your hands that you do" -- IMHO you're expressing a lack of faith in God to keep that promise to bless you by doing so.
i'm just going to leave this here, because it's clear enough to me what the Bible says. you guys have fun with it
J
i think the biggest reason so many hate socialism is they associate it with Stalinist russia. stalin was for sure a corrupt autocratic murderer. the idea was from lenin and he died shortly after the revolution. lenins idea was progressive but stalin destroyed the idea.
everyone sees this failure but few look back to the goverment they were replacing. an oppressive monarchy. just a few years before the revolution 1000 - 4000 unarmed russians were gunned down in st petersburg. they were not looking to revolt or cause harm to anyone, they only wanted to be heard, they wanted to present a petition to csar Nicholas. and He answered their pleas with gunfire.
everyone sees this failure but few look back to the goverment they were replacing. an oppressive monarchy. just a few years before the revolution 1000 - 4000 unarmed russians were gunned down in st petersburg. they were not looking to revolt or cause harm to anyone, they only wanted to be heard, they wanted to present a petition to csar Nicholas. and He answered their pleas with gunfire.
Brother, I respect your opinion, but that´s not Socialism. Helping the poor is a quite different thing. The Right helps (or should) help those in need, but ONLY those. What you are saying in the application of "taxes" to those in need at that time. Socialism is much more than helping the poor.
Socialism is about (coercive) :
- social/common ownership
- distribution of wealth (more economic equality)
- democratic control of means of production
- progressive taxation
- class distinctions are diminished
- free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation.
- etc
Do you see this refereed on the passage you wrote?
During that time, private property was legitimate, taxes were flat, and then you helped those according to your will and of how much you needed. Israel authorities helped those in need, that´s a fact, but they didn´t say that "hey, you have more, so you have to pay more taxes" nor they did any sort of wealth distribution or they control any means of production, etc. Sounds to me that was not Socialism...!
Last edited:
yes,
Americans have had it beaten into them from all kinds of sources since the "red scare" and the 1950's that socialism = communism = Stalinism = oppressive Maoist dictatorship = godlessness
that's why we have so many replies here that just say "no" but don't back it up with anything. they think it's "obvious" and scripture like what i put doesn't even cross their minds. many of them are completely blind to it because of all the nationalistic, anti-USSR propaganda they've been spoonfed as Americans their whole lives.
of course that doesn't describe everyone -- but i'm confident that accounts for the opinion of no small proportion of citizens in this country - especially those who are old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era. we've been culturally brought up to connote all kinds of evil with words like "communism" and "socialism" and beaten over the head with advertising promoting selfish covetousness, even though as a country we've had forms of social welfare and federal programs that use tax revenue to implement things that benefit the whole populace ever since we started collecting taxes in the first place.
in some ways, it's a language barrier, IMHO.
Americans have had it beaten into them from all kinds of sources since the "red scare" and the 1950's that socialism = communism = Stalinism = oppressive Maoist dictatorship = godlessness
that's why we have so many replies here that just say "no" but don't back it up with anything. they think it's "obvious" and scripture like what i put doesn't even cross their minds. many of them are completely blind to it because of all the nationalistic, anti-USSR propaganda they've been spoonfed as Americans their whole lives.
of course that doesn't describe everyone -- but i'm confident that accounts for the opinion of no small proportion of citizens in this country - especially those who are old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era. we've been culturally brought up to connote all kinds of evil with words like "communism" and "socialism" and beaten over the head with advertising promoting selfish covetousness, even though as a country we've had forms of social welfare and federal programs that use tax revenue to implement things that benefit the whole populace ever since we started collecting taxes in the first place.
in some ways, it's a language barrier, IMHO.