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
Read the last line of my #39 above, and then compare it with your post.
Read the last line of my #39 above, and then compare it with your post.
Again, you show you simply don’t understand how it works.
There is a reason more reps were opposed to this bill than supported it.
In terms of life, the conservatives in this denomination have worked for 2 decades to bring our statement on abortion around. It was at one time during the heyday of theological liberalism a pro-abortion position. Each quadrennium since it has been gradually crafted in the direction of a pro-life, rape/incest/life of mother position. We have just about succeeded, and with another 2 quadrennia we’ll be there.
But, you don’t understand how it works and what we’ve fought for.
I will admit, though, that it’s a lot easier to quit than to fight.
Ah, but from where do these rights derive? Maintaining someone else's life is by no means the same thing as taking life away. Does the Bible support a God-given right to healthcare? Or, do you believe that human rights come from the government? :)
endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights....among these...LIFE.
Jesus is the Great Physician. He grants us life and he knows the number of our days. If we wish to prolong the number of our days, that is our priviledge and it is something that ultimately we are going to have to pay for. I pay extra money for healthy foods on the premise and hope that I might live longer or at least live better. That is an exercise of my rights, but if, in order to prolong my life or make it better, I must steal money from someone else by way of government imposed taxes and fees, then I am taking away someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness in order to make myself happier. Quite frankly that is a sin.
I get angry at Churches that are willing to lobby congress to institute Missionary objectives and promote the welfare state as a means of allegedly doing God's work. Charity becomes theft when you take the fruits of one man's labor by force and then give it to another man who has not earned it. Paul states quite clearly that if a man refuses to work, then he should not be given food. Clearly the right to life comes with the obligation to keep yourself alive and not to force others to feed you, or to pay for your doctor visits or to give you shelter. When the government takes the money that I earned (the money that God has given to me to be a steward) and then gives it to a man who will not work, then the Government has violated my Christian principles with my money. The Bible also states that a man who does not provide for his own family is "worse than the infidels" 1 Tim 5:8.
Yes we have a right to life, but we also have a duty maintain our own lives and not to be an unreasonable burden on society.
We have had conversations along this line before and I have very much appreciated your insight. And you’ve assured me that there is a movement within the church leadership to move towards more conservative principles. I thought that was true until this. Between this and the UMC push for amnesty for illegals, all I see is a church leadership riddled with leftist, social justice types who think America is the worst country on earth and all our institutions should be dismantled.
Maybe because my minister has been a little more open about his personal views, I am more disillusioned. Leaving isn’t easy for me. Truly, it is not. But I keep coming back to the question of when does my prayers, my presence, my gifts and my service condone these positions? Where is the line? I can’t condone the UMC’s position on health care reform, global warming or amnesty for illegals. I just can’t. The UMC leadership is somewhat akin to Congress - “you can protest all you want, we’re still going to do what we think is best. The devil with foundational principles - we’re going to do what we’re going to do.”
I feel like Congress has just raped and pillaged this country. And now, I can’t even find solace in my church because the UMC condoned what Congress has just done.
Sure, but isn't there a big difference between the right to not have one's life unlawfully taken away and a right to force other people to sacrifice to any degree to maintain everyone's life? Do you draw a line between universal coverage for all healthcare and universal life-saving-only healthcare? We already have the latter right now, so I'm trying to figure out what changes vis-a-vis Obamacare you are supporting.
You haven't been reading my posts if you think I support Obamacare. What I said was that there is nothing immoral about saying there is a right to health care. I also said there is nothing inherently immoral about the government providing health care. As I mentioned, I am a military retiree after 24 years service, and I have been part of a government health plan for decades.
P-Marlowe pointed out that I earned that health care, and I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a government sponsored health plan.
What we object to is an addition to the welfare program, and that is what Obamacare is. Rightly, Marlowe points out that a man should have to work to provide sustenance for himself and his family. Those are all principles with which I agree.
That is why I purposely stated above that a vibrant economy with real jobs is the best government health plan. For some reason, no one seems to read those comments.
I wrote the following last week while everyone was thinking there were going to flip some democratic congresscritters:
In Before the Knockdown: How the Republicans handed the Democrats an ObamaCare victory
Attempting to explain the Methodist organization to those not a part of it, is akin to explaining the workings of the US Congress to a foreigner.
It is a democratic body that meets on once every for years for 10 days. It takes an extremely long time to bring about change when you only get one shot every 4 years.
In short, we are just now finishing up throwing off the stupidity of the 60's and 70's. If you think about it, we've only had 7 meetings since the end of the 70's.
We have no leader. There is no one in charge. Each region is just about totally independent under its bishop EXCEPT for something called the Book of Discipline and the Social Principles which are stroked every 4 years a few lines at a time.
We have boards and agencies that are in charge of certain areas such as missions, or education, or ordination, but their heads do not speak for the denomination, and they have zero power over me in Ohio or John Q Methodist in Iowa. None. Zilch. Nada.
So, we really are a bunch of local churches very loosely connected to a bishop whose sole power is to appoint a pastor to any particular church.
Everyone wants to view us like we're the Catholic Church with a Pope in control. It simply isn't so. We are far more like the independent local baptists than we are the Catholics in terms of our structure.
So, Iceskater, the issue is your local church. The issue is who is how it gets run, how it funds projects and outreaches, and how it applies the gospel of Jesus Christ. If YOUR LOCAL CHURCH is failing, then by all means, feel free to depart that church. In doing so, you'll be departing the UMC. But, if your local church is winning disciples and being used by the Lord, then you wait for the Lord to tell you to go before you go.
...... That is an exercise of my rights, but if, in order to prolong my life or make it better, I must steal money from someone else by way of government imposed taxes and fees, then I am taking away someone else's right to the pursuit of happiness in order to make myself happier. Quite frankly that is a sin.
Yes, I completely agree. My inalienable rights end when their protection infringes on the inalienable rights of others. And to be fair I apply standards of reasonableness. In the Bible, widows and the poor have the inalienable right to glean from the fields of the haves in order to live. However, I see nowhere that any rights of the haves are burdened by this rule, especially since what the widows and the poor (and aliens) have a right to is what is left over or overlooked the first time.
IMO, with Obamacare this does not apply because its goal really involves redistribution principles. There will be real suffering on the part of the general population, including the bankruptcy of the country. Obamacare does not take what is "left over" from the population, it takes whatever it wants. I don't see where the Bible supports government powered Robin Hood redistribution ideals.
I think that it is a noble GOAL to provide healthcare for all and I believe that our Lord expressed His wishes on this in Matthew 25: 31-46. This is a goal that will NEVER be reached, but it can still be the goal.
I do not believe for a minute that socialized medicine will do anything but hinder this goal. However, I think that insurance companies bear a lot of blame as well. A century ago health insurance was unheard of, yet the only people who lacked medical care were people who lived in areas where there were no doctors or hospitals. Doctors and hospitals DO NOT turn people away in need of necessary care based on affordibility. Moreover, many doctors volunteer at clinics and donate supplies to them as well.
Liberty would ensure that people have a right to "pursue" health care, but no inalienable right to "receive" health care. The DOI mentions our right to "pursue" happiness, but does not guarantee us a "right to happiness." In other words, I am at liberty to pursue health care provided I have the means to secure that liberty either by way of charity or by the use of my own hard earned money. I have no right to compel others to provide me with my "rights" at a cost to them of their money (i.e., to confiscate a portion of the means by which they are able to "pursue" their own happiness).
So, I would disagree with your insistence that there is a "right to health care". There isn't any such right. There is a right to pursue happiness, which is all encompassing liberty provided it does not trample on the rights of other to pursue their happiness.
If we have a "right to health care" then there would have to be a concomitant obligation of doctors and nurses and hospitals to provide that health care without remuneration and even against their will. We abolished that idea with the 13th amendment. Or at least I thought we did.
P-M, your post is PERFECT!
I would view it from the angle of obstruction. To obstruct my access to health care is to say that I am not permitted to have health care WHETHER I can pay for it or not.
In that case, my right to life has been denied.
In the instance of active provision of health care for another, who is not of your own kinship group, it is not possible to assert such a responsibility without calling it charity/welfare.
Do individuals have an obligation to provide charity? No.
Is the provision of charity a social obligation? No.
Is the provision of charity a social necessity? Yes.
Why is it a necessity? For the same reason as contagion must be contained, so poverty, disease, and depravity must be contained. As it grows, it infects its surroundings.
That could be and I'm sorry if I have misunderstood. I just know that the premise and driving principle behind Obamacare is that health care is a moral right.
I also said there is nothing inherently immoral about the government providing health care. As I mentioned, I am a military retiree after 24 years service, and I have been part of a government health plan for decades.
From a moral standpoint I would agree with Marlowe and say that your healthcare is different because it was well earned. The people have collectively and correctly decided that part of our moral debt to you for your patriotic service in protection of our freedoms is healthcare for you. I consider that different from an unearned and unlimited right to healthcare at the forced expense of taxpayers.
P-Marlowe pointed out that I earned that health care, and I agree with that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a government sponsored health plan.
It makes all the difference in the world. Gov't health plans are normally funded by confiscating money from the people. That can be moral if it is in exchange for something, but if not then it cannot be said to be in protection of a right. I would not say it is immoral for a government to run a healthcare program per se if it did not rely on stealing to fund it. I would just say it is improper for our government to do that since that is not a purpose of our government. An Amendment to our Constitution could change that, but that is what it would take.
What we object to is an addition to the welfare program, and that is what Obamacare is. Rightly, Marlowe points out that a man should have to work to provide sustenance for himself and his family. Those are all principles with which I agree.
Then you appear to be saying that healthcare is a right that should not be protected by the government. I am confused. :)
That is why I purposely stated above that a vibrant economy with real jobs is the best government health plan. For some reason, no one seems to read those comments.
Everyone agrees this would be ideal. We're trying to figure out what is right based on current conditions.
I wrote the following last week while everyone was thinking there were going to flip some democratic congresscritters:
Many of those ideas sound good to me and are antithetical to Obamacare. I suppose the core issue is whether healthcare is a right. If we concede that it is, then the progressives have won the war. The rest is quibbling over the best way for government to enforce and protect that right.
I have the right to life.
That means that my access to life cannot be obstructed (or taken) by others (without due process of law.)
That does not mean that someone has to provide me with the requirements for life: food, clothing, shelter.
I have the right to health care: (see above)
That means that my access to health care cannot be obstructed by others.
That does not mean that someone has to provide me with the requirements for healthcare: money, bandages, medicines, etc.
Why does my saying you have the right to life not elicit from you the response, “Well, that means you’re saying that I have to feed you lunch at noon and dinner at six.”
That is a very interesting statement x. You are using language reserved by the enemy.
Can you give me an example of someone obstructing another person's right to "health care?" I mean other than the "medical procedure" to end the life of an unborn child, what other "health care" "access" has ever been obstructed in the history of this country.
It means that if I can pay, that you can’t force me to die by denying me health care. It is a corollary of the right to life, Marlowe.
You kill me by denying me access.
If you’ve got 10 vials of cure and 10 people with disease and all 10 can pay your price, but you arbitrarily obstruct one man’s purchase, even though he can pay, then you have killed him by denying him his right to life.
See post #58
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.