Tomorrow, November the 11th, is Veterans Day. A day set aside to say thanks to and for all those who have served in the military. As one who had a father who served in WW2, an older brother who served and was wounded in Korea, and numerous childhood friends who served in Vietnam, (one who never came home) and a son who served in the Army, I say thank you.
But that’s not the only thing this post is about. Its also concerning the shameful story below.
Source, PNHP:
quote..
A research team at Harvard Medical School estimates 2,266 U.S. military veterans under the age of 65 died last year because they lacked health insurance and thus had reduced access to care.
That figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001.
The Harvard group analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, which surveyed Americans about their insurance coverage and veteran status, and found that 1,461,615 veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 were uninsured in 2008. Veterans were only classified as uninsured if they neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals or clinics.
“Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people – too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School who testified before Congress about uninsured veterans in 2007 and carried out the analysis released today [Tuesday]. “As a result, veterans go without the care they need every day in the U.S., and thousands die each year. It’s a disgrace.”
Something to think about…
"If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord's will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel , insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness."
As a veteran, this bit makes me want to barf. PJ – you keep putting up socialist leaning articles, not so subtly pushing compassion through the lead hand of the federal government. It ain’t a good thing – ask any American Indian.
Manfred, i didn’t realize Harvard Medical School promoted socialism.
The point is their facts don’t lie. Many veterans do not have health insurance, which leads to illnesses and diseases not being treated, and in some instances to early death.
But you know what…i didn’t need to read the Harvard findings to know that. I know many of these uninsured veterans personally.
If something should make you want to barf, it should be the number of your fellow vets who need medical help, but are without insurance.
Its time as Christians we stop looking at ‘left’ and ‘right’ and political positions, etc. and start to look at people Manfred.
And i say that as the grand-daughter of an American Indian.
PJ – it is NOT the federal government’s job to provide ANYTHING to “the people”. Harvard is owned and operated by several government entities. Just because one served in the military does not mean the country owes him anything beyond what he has been paid for his service. Wounds suffered in conflict ought to be taken care of.
If I was unemployed, without health insurance – that is not the concern of the government. The fact that I am a veteran is irrelevant.
Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution prescribes and proscribes the limits of the federal government. Social programs are beyond that authority and are by their nature and the nature of government socialist.
Christians ought to look after people – we should not project that responsibility onto the government. Church and state have distinctly different roles and agendas and we should not confuse one with the other – lest we join the cult of Rome.
I’m glad you are neither unemployed Manfred, or lack health insurance. I sincerely mean that. You’re blessed.
Manfred,
What does Socialism have to do with this?
As Christians aren’t we suppose to love and take care of our fellow man?
If you don’t think our taxes should be used to offer any kind of health care to those who need it, then tell me, how many people in need outside of your own family are you personally supplying medicine and health care for?
Socialism is the forceful collection of money earned by one group to be used for the benefit of another – as determined by and controlled by the government. This process has nothing to do with the Christian duty we have as described in the Bible. Paul’s letters give us clear instruction on how we can give for the relief of brothers and sisters who are in need. We don’t need and should not rely on the state to take one man’s earnings to sooth our conscience.
I think our government should live within its constitutional limits – here’s what a couple of wise men had to say about this:
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” — President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869)
“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” –President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
And here’s a credible story about one congressman’s wake-up call on this very issue – charity towards veterans and their families: http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Politics/Not_Yours_to_Give.htm
Are you in favor of the state replacing the church in the realm of charity? If so, Rome is calling you.
“Paul’s letters give us clear instruction on how we can give for the relief of brothers and sisters who are in need. We don’t need and should not rely on the state to take one man’s earnings to sooth our conscience”
Agreed.
But since we don’t do it, and I’d rather see the poor cared for than not, I’m willing to let the government pick up the slack until we get off the couch and do something about it.
The church sat on its behind and encouraged the feds to take of such care, giving rise to the socialist movement.
If anyone wants the government to “take up the slack”, then let it be the local governments. The federal government is prohibited from such things – no matter what it does in violation of the constitution.
Sad…
It all comes down to what we are willing to do and/or sacrifice for others. I for one can’t walk by on the other side of road pretending not to see the veteran or non-veteran, ill and with no means to see a doctor.
Perhaps it takes one having been in those circumstances to understand.
Libby,
You ask a good question for any of us to ponder on…
You quoted Franklin Pierce and called him a “wise man”? Wow, never thought I’d ever see that happen…well, good thing he was such a “wise” man since he wasn’t much of a president.
What is up with “Christians” nowadays wanting to label everything Socialist? The person in the drive-thru messed up my order, must be a Socialist…the paperboy didn’t deliver my newspaper this morning, must be a Socialist…hey, look at that skunk that just ran across the road, must be a Socialist.
Remember Lazarus the beggar? Wonder what the rich guy was thinking, “Hey, what was I supposed to do? I ain’t no Socialist!”
It seems that so many “Christians” in the US are more concerned about money than anything else…does it really matter? Since when did compassion become Socialism? Since when did caring about somebody other than yourself become Socialism? Am I for national health care? No, because I think the government is corrupt and would screw it up…however, that doesn’t mean that I callously write off those who have no health care.
You have some nerve saying “Rome is calling you” when it is you, based on your posts here, who seems to be of this world.
ahahaha!
Mark, i know the whole idea is in no way funny, but that cracked me up…mainly because it wouldn’t surprise me today.
Everyone who shows any compassion today is either a left-wing Socialist, Communist, or is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler… in short-anti-American.
We Christians use to see demons behind every bush–now, or rather in the last 18 months, we see Socialists and Communists lurking in the bushes!
I gotta agree with Manfred on this.
First of all this report is from an organization called Physicians for National Health Policy. This group supports full nationalized health care
Second, the Harvard study by A.P. Wilper was funded by a grant from the Health Resources and Service Administration. It should not surprise anyone that the study would conclude we need more government intrusion into the delivery of health care.
Finally it is not “compassion” to use government to take by force from those who have in order to give to those who don’t have. That is nothing but legalized theft of private property.
This country got along for almost 200 years without any government subsidized health care. In those days church and social organizations provided assistance to the needy without coercion. Families helped family members. That is true compassion.
2Cor 9:7 says that each of us should give as we purpose in our hearts, not grudgingly and not because we are required to give.
Forced compassion through government taxation can never replace or even supplement true Christian charity
“Forced compassion through government taxation can never replace or even supplement true Christian charity”
Forced respect for human life through laws against murder can never replace or even supplement true Christian love of life.
Forced respect for personal property through laws against theft can never replace of even supplement true Christian respect for others.
Forced respect for traditional family definitions through laws against gay marriage can never replace …
… Would you like to revise that argument? It doesn’t stand up to even a cursory challenge.
The point of social help systems isn’t, really, to replace the private charity. It’s to take care of the millions of people who aren’t being cared for.
[...] grabbed it from this thread today, but I’ve come across it many other [...]
If the government uses tax dollars to fund a war that some don’t agree with, is that robbery? Should the wars that we engage in be funded only by those who would volunteer to fund it? If it is not robbery to use the tax dollars of those who disagree with war, how is it robbery to use tax dollars to take care of the of our veterans?
Donna you must have read my mind.
I won’t quote figures, cause to be honest i can’t recall them, but i read recently that the money which has went into both wars we’re still involved in, one after 8 years, would have paid for total health care for every person in the US for many years…
pjmiller,
I’m no mind reader, but I think I know a good heart when I see one. While I will admit Tax Day is not my favorite time of year and Uncle Sam isn’t my favorite dinner guest, because I can never seem to prepare enough food for him, the arguments I hear from those who oppose governmental involvement in healthcare don’t appear to be consistent in my view.
No wickle I will not revise my argument. Your attempt to equate laws against the taking of innocent life with laws requiring taxation for health care is what does not stand up to scrutiny.
One of the few true purposes of government is the protection of life, and personal property thereby allowing each person to pursue happiness to the best of their ability.
It does not follow that government should be allowed to forcibly take money from some in order to give to others for any reason. With that sort of reasoning there is no limit to what government would be allowed to do – and that is exactly where we are today in this country.
Our constitution limits the power of government in order to allow equality of opportunity for every person. People like you want to use it to empower the government to enforce equality of result. That is the very definition of socialism. From each according to his ability – to each according to his need.