Posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:24 PM PDT by iceskater
The landmark vote on health care by the House of Representatives March 21 affirms The United Methodist Church’s Social Principles that declares health care is a “basic human right,” the top executive of the denomination’s social action agency said.
"For decades, the General Board of Church and Society has worked alongside thousands of United Methodists to achieve health care for all in the U.S.," said Jim Winkler, chief executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society. "This vote brings us closer to that reality."
The majority of United Methodist lawmakers in the House voted against the plan. However, in her closing remarks before the legislation was approved, Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to The United Methodist Church as one of many organizations “sending a clear message to members of Congress: Say yes to health care reform.” More specifically, the Board of Church and Society is included on Pelosi’s Web site listing organizations supporting reform.
While it has historically supported access to health care for all, the denomination’s top lawmaking assembly did not act on the specific legislation. General Conference, held every four years, last met in 2008.
Votes by United Methodists in House of Representatives
YES:
Vic Snyder (D), Ark. Doris Matsui (D), Cali. Laura Richardson (D), Cali. Allen Boyd (D), Fla. Suzanne Kosmas (D), Fla. Baron Hill (D), Ind. David Loebsack (D), Iowa Dutch Ruppersberger (D), Md. Mark Schauer (D), Mich. Bennie Thompson (D), Miss. Russ Carnahan (D), Mo. Emanuel Cleaver II (D), Mo. Betty Sutton (D), Ohio Bart Gordon (D), Tenn. Lloyd Doggett (D), Texas Gene Green (D), Texas Solomon Ortiz (D), Texas Rick Larsen (D), Wash.
NO:
Marion Berry (D), Ark. Mike Ross (D), Ark. Mike Coffman (R), Colo. Jeff Miller (R), Fla. Bill Posey (R), Fla. Bill Young (R), Fla. Steve Buyer (R), Ind. Lynn Jenkins (R), Kan. Jerry Moran (R), Kan. Ed Whitfield (R), Ky. Mike Rogers (R), Mich. John Kline (R), Minn. Lee Terry (R), Neb. Steven LaTourette (R), Ohio Dan Boren (D), Okla. Tom Cole (R), Okla. Phil Roe (R), Tenn. Joe Barton (R), Texas John Culberson (R), Texas Chet Edwards (D), Texas Kay Granger (R), Texas Ralph Hall (R), Texas Sam Johnson (R), Texas Pete Olson (R), Texas Pete Sessions (R), Texas Rick Boucher (D), Virginia Differing opinions United Methodists, like most Americans, have taken different positions on the basic legislation approved by the House. Opponents of the legislation have cited its cost, its expansion of federal power and concerns that it would reverse past policy by allowing federal funding of abortions.
The United Methodist Church is third among religious groups in the total number of members of the 111th Congress. Among its 44 members in the House, 26 voted no; 18 voted yes.
“There are parts of this bill that are good, including much-needed health insurance reforms and making health insurance affordable for the uninsured,” said Rep. Mike Ross, a United Methodist from Arizona who opposed the legislation. “On the other hand, many parts of this bill cause me great concern, like telling people they must buy health insurance or be fined, cutting Medicare by more than a half-trillion dollars, increasing taxes and forcing businesses to provide health insurance to their employees.”
Rep. Marion Berry, a United Methodist from Arkansas, said health care reform “must be deficit-neutral and must be fully paid for by squeezing out more savings from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and private insurance industry instead of cramming down hospitals and other providers and taxing Americans.”
United Methodist Congresswoman Laura Richardson of California voted for the legislation.
“While this legislation does not include an comprehensive full public option as the House of Representatives preferred, it is a giant step forward in beginning the reform of our nation’s current neglectful health care system,” she said.
Palmer rejoices Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of the Council of Bishops, said he “rejoiced” at the passage of the bill because it aligns with the values of The United Methodist Church.
Though the denomination’s chief legislative body, the General Conference, has taken no stand, it has been a strong advocate for universal health care.
The United Methodist Church in its law book states: “We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”
The 2008 United Methodist Book of Resolutions adds: “In the United States today, however, fulfillment of this duty is thwarted by simultaneous crises of access, quality, and cost. The result of these crises is injustice to the most vulnerable, increased risk to health care consumers, and waste of scarce public and private resources.”
Resolution 3201 in the United Methodist Book of Resolutions charges the United Methodist Board of Church and Society with primary responsibility for advocating health care for all in the United States Congress. The resolution was approved by the 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s highest policy-making body.
Paul Brown, a Duke graduate student, called for unity amid disagreement.
“Sisters and brothers, our unity is grounded in Jesus Christ—not in the details of health care reform,” he wrote on the denomination’s Facebook site. “As a church that includes both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush as members, we are free to disagree on various social issues, but we remain united in one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”
News media contact: Kathy L. Gilbert, Nashville, Tenn., (615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org
As a Methodist I denounce the United Methodist Board of Church and Society. Methodists do not all agree with this political organization.
I didn’t think Methodists were any different from any other denomination. It just hit too close to home for me.
I grew up in the UMC. My minister made some comments from the pulpit on Sunday about HC that really put me over the edge. I just don’t know how I can continue to support the UMC. Supporting the church means I condone their positions.
What did your pastor say, and what is immoral about health care IF it doesn’t include provisions (like abortion) that are themselves immoral?
So are you going to thank me for dragging you into this thread? :-)
If health care is a right, then why am I being taxed on the money I spend to secure that right?
He preached on the story of Mary anointing Jesus’s feet. He said, “I wish Jesus had never said, ‘The poor you have with you always’. At least one President has used that as an excuse to cut government aid programs.”
That was the most egregious comment. On one had he said that we as Christ’s followers that we need to help our fellow man and in the next breathe he said government needs to do that on our behalf. You really can’t have that both ways. IMHO, at least.
I agree with the #1 underline that health care is a basic human right, in the same way that I agree that life is a basic human right. If you are denied access to staying alive, then I would consider that a denial of the right to live.
I'm glad to see them use scripture to support their position. #2.
#3 is an opinion about what is "best" and is not enforceable. I would say that a strong economy with good jobs is the best way to provide health care. There is nothing in this principle that is not debatable by any member of the UMC. It is not a "law" that you believe it. It is the opinion of a committee that met and wrote it.
#4 Is again debatable as to how to provide. To provide by having a strong economy is just as valid a position as any other that might be considered.
V. Right to Health Care Health is a condition of physical, mental, social, and spiritual well-being. John 10:10b says, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Stewardship of health is the responsibility of each person to whom health has been entrusted. Creating the personal, environmental, and social conditions in which health can thrive is a joint responsibility—public and private. We encourage individuals to pursue a healthy lifestyle and affirm the importance of preventive health care, health education, environmental and occupational safety, good nutrition,and secure housing in achieving health. #1Health care is a basic human right.Providing the care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all, a responsibility government ignores at its peril. #2 In Ezekiel 34:4a, God points out the failures of the leadership of Israel to care for the weak: “You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured.” As a result all suffer. Like police and fire protection, #3 health care is best funded through the government’s ability to tax each person equitably and directly fund the provider entities. Countries facing a public health crisis such as HIV/AIDS must have access to generic medicines and to patented medicines. We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services that will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The right to health care includes care for persons with brain diseases, neurological conditions, or physical disabilities, who must be afforded the same access to health care as all other persons in our communities. It is unjust to construct or perpetuate barriers to physical or mental wholeness or full participation in community.
#4 We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.
There is nothing immoral about health care per se. The bill that is about to become law is immoral and unconstitutional. I think there is a lot that is immoral about government running health care. The slide to death panels for example.
I’m glad you dragged him into the thread even if he isn’t so glad. I value his opinion and insight on the workings of the UMC. I hope I’m not being too obnoxious. I’ve struggled with where the UMC has been going for a long time.
Gee, did she get tired of trying to deal with the Catholic Bishops?
I was just going to ping one of you and find out who has a United Methodist ping list!
IF death panels are a part of a government health plan, then that would be immoral....the same as if abortion were a part of a gov’t plan.
However, there is nothing immoral about a government health plan. I, for example, am a military retiree, and I have had my health care provided by the military (a gov’t arm) for decades. There’s nothing immoral about health care unless the plan itself is immoral.
It is immoral, I think, to be unworkable. That is wrong with this particular plan. So is the failure to specifically prevent abortion. So is any committee that decides who is to get life-saving care and who won’t.
There is a difference between saying THIS plan has immoral elements and saying ANY plan a government could come up with is automatically immoral simply because it originates at a government level.
I think whenever government usurps the free market, then there is a problem that perhaps borders on immoral.
You’re giving me things to think about about.
I do believe that God inspired the Founders in the creation of our country. This law flies in the face of everything the Founders fought and died for. So, in that regard, I think this bill is immoral.
Still, I struggle. I really am having ‘issues’ with drawing the line between being in the local church and supporting the local church and by my presence in the local church giving tacit approval to policies and positions that are ‘questionable’ from a biblical perspective.
I am not a Bible scholar. I’m just a plain old member. All I know is this doesn’t ‘feel’ right.
And I would say, "Exactly. That's how the Methodist Church also works."
A Military retirement health plan is something you earned. It is not a "right" otherwise I should be entitled to the same policy that you have at the same cost.
The immoral thing about government mandated health care is that it takes away incentives to do charitable giving. If the government is providing all the needs of the poor, then I am not obligated as a Christian to care for the poor. That responsibility has now been shifted to the government and now rather than people relying upon God or upon the good graces of charitable people, they now rely on the government and in essence the government replaces the church and the government becomes "god".
I recognize that there is a moral obligation of people to provide for those who cannot under any circumstances provide for themselves, but again the obligation to pay for that should first fall upon those to whom God has charged with taking care of them, i.e., religious Christians and Jews and secondarily and as a last resort upon society as a whole.
So in my world, government run taxpayer paid and mandatorily prescribed health insurance is immoral and unconstitutional.
The mere unconstitutionality of this bill is reason enough to call it immoral. Congress and the Federal Government is under an obligation to act only in accordance with the Constitution, and when they violate that Constitution, they are breaking a covenant with the taxpayers and the citizens and as such they have acted immorally as well as illegally. This congress has broken down the covenant that our founders made with the Citizenry and as such they have, by the passage of this abortion, aborted the foundations of our Republic and plunged us into tyranny.
**IF death panels are a part of a government health plan, then that would be immoral....the same as if abortion were a part of a gov’t plan.**
I’m thinking that they probably are both a part of this.
I’ll go get the thread about Planned Parenthood celebrating because this passed. That’s enough proof for me that we still don’t know what is in this healthcare debacle.
A particular health plan is not a “right.” Access to health care is a right. It must be since “life” itself is a right. If I were denied “access”, then that would be the same as killing me.
We’re not saying at this point anything about who is responsible for paying.
Whether I earned it or not, my health care is a government plan. That fact does not make it immoral. Had I not earned it, and you were forced to pay for it anyway, then that would be at least one immoral element of it.
Just because you have a right to access medical care does not mean you have a right to force other people to pay for it for you. The essence of Liberty is personal responsibility. The essence of Charity is voluntary individual sacrifice. A government which compels others to purchase your "right" is tyrannical and tyranny is the polar opposite of Charity.
Since you can't live without food or water, should the government compel me to pay for your food?
If access to health care is a right, then from where do we get our rights? Are our rights given to us by our government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.