Stanek Sunday funnies 6-30-13
Here were my top five favorite cartoons this past week. Don’t forget to vote for your favorite in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com (it’s the Chicago way, after all)…
by Stuart Carlson at GoComics.com, a reminder that just because a marriage is heterosexual doesn’t make it holy….
On that topic, from a June 26 article entitled, “How should same-sex marriage change the Church’s witness,” by Dr. Russell Moore:
That means that we must repent of our pathetic marriage cultures within the church. For too long, we’ve refused to discipline a divorce culture that has ravaged our churches. For too long, we’ve quieted our voices on the biblical witness of the distinctive missions of fathers and mothers in favor of generic messages on “parenting.”
For too long, we’ve acted as though the officers of Christ’s church were Justices of the Peace, marrying people who have no accountability to the church, and in many cases were forbidden by Scripture to marry. Just because we don’t have two brides or two grooms in front of us, that doesn’t mean we’ve been holding to biblical marriage.
The dangerous winds of religious liberty suppression means that our nominal Bible Belt marrying parson ways are over. Good riddance. This means we have the opportunity, by God’s grace, to take marriage as seriously as the gospel does, in a way that prompts the culture around us to ask why.
closing with an ominous twofer by Ted Rall at GoComics.com…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
For me, #1 is the clear winner. It’s very blunt, and because of that, it puts this #standwithwendy nonsense into perspective.
Sorry….the clear winner isn’t even a cartoon. It is the article penned by Dr. Moore. For it contains the real truth….which is the truth that is not only hard….but hard for the Church to accept. Namely this. The ground was given up by the continuously woeful defense of innocent life, to do what was necessary, up to and including mass disobedience to the point of mass imprisonment nationwide of Christians of strong constitution and buttressed by the historical actions of the martyrs of old. Not to mention the examples of the Freedom Marchers of the Civil Rights Movement. Not to mention the actions of the Founding Fathers putting their lives on the line for a piece of paper called the Constitution….a secular document for crying out loud.
A cartoon lampooning the winning side only highlights the fact that you lost and the only thing you can do about it is lampoon it in a drawing. That might assauge your feelings of defeat and discouragement….but it will do nothing to regain the high ground. Voting for any of a group of things that will do absolutely nothing but give brief, if not rueful, entertainment to the beholder is a waste of time.
However, Dr. Moore’s article is ESSENTIAL reading.
Let me add this quote from the article to the the one listed above. THIS is the HARD truth to those of you still looking at trying to change things through the American political system.
” This also means we must change the way we preach. Those with same-sex attractions, who follow Christ, will be walking away from what their families and friends want for them: wedding cake and married life and the American Dream. Following Jesus will mean taking up a cross and following a hard narrow way. It always does.
If we’re going to preach that sort of gospel, we must make it clear that this cross-bearing self-denial isn’t just for homosexually-tempted Christians. It is for all of us, because that’s what the gospel is.
If your church has been preaching the American Dream, with eternal life at the end and Jesus as the means you use to get all that, you don’t have a gospel that can reach your gay and lesbian neighbors—or anyone else for that matter. “
As some of you here like to tell me (ahem….Carla) using the hip, pop-culture vernacular of the day…..
Own it.
“A cartoon lampooning the winning side only highlights the fact that you lost and the only thing you can do about it is lampoon it in a drawing.”
Jumbo, you need to look beyond yesterday’s loss. You rail and wail about how there were no pro-lifer’s present to beat back the pro-abort’s. And people like governor Perry are making genuine efforts to reverse that ‘victory’ and lampooning the other side is just a part of an on-goinging battle to right the wrong.
Regarding Dr. Moore’s article: many Christians in their second and third marriages say, “Those homosexuals are just making a mockery of marriage” and yet somehow miss the irony.
I actually, surprisingly, like the Russell Moore article. He’s right. It’s difficult to take any church that claims to be anti-gay marriage seriously while you allow divorced and remarried people in your congregations with no condemnation. As I understand it, in most cases remarriage is committing adultery against your first spouse. It shouldn’t be tolerated, remarried people should be treated the same way that homosexual couples are. They are living in sin, according to Christian belief. I’ll give churches some legitimacy when they crack down on that. Time for them to leave their second “spouse” and get back with the first one or be celibate.
See now, those of you who have crossed verbal swords with truthseeker? He’s a regular “Mr. Sunshine” compared to others! ;)
Jack,
As Bill O’Reilly says, you don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Oh boy, I think I’ve just opened the weekly Sunday Funnies avalanche.
“Jack, as Bill O’Reilly says, you don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Oh boy, I think I’v just opened the weekly Sunday Funnies avalanche.”
No, I wasn’t saying it “justifies” any bad behavior according to Christian beliefs. I was saying it’s utter and complete hypocrisy by certain churches, and it’s not surprising people don’t take “traditional marriage” complaints seriously when this stuff goes on. People don’t like it because there’s a ridiculous amount of divorced and remarried Christians. Too bad. If they want to be consistent and apply the Gospel to everyone, then those people should do what they expect out of gay people. Remarry the first spouse or be celibate. Scripture is quite clear.
”Oh boy, I think I’ve just opened the weekly Sunday Funnies avalanche.”
Without the help of Ex-GOP? I hope he doesn’t feel left out.
Jack,
So then toss out the opinions of those who haven’t followed their marriage vows perfectly. That still doesn’t negate the institution itself, Any more than lousy parents prove children should be raised by the state.
I like #1. On a side note, Sanford got re-elected in South Carolina. He’s Pro-Life but he left Jenny Sanford for another women. He’s also not married to this other women. Does being Pro-Life trump his sin of infidelity to Jenny Sanford?
”Does being Pro-Life trump his sin of infidelity to Jenny Sanford?”
From a practical, political perspective, if the only way to not elect him was to elect someone who is pro-choice, then the answer is yes. When it comes to politicians, I care more about their policies than their personal lives.
There’s never a perfect choice. When liberals elect the likes of a man caught on tape snorting cocaine with protitutes as mayor of D.C., Bill Clinton, and are about to elect that perverted narcissist Anthony Weiner as mayor of N.Y., they’ve got no right to gloat over Sanford.
Anthony Weiner!LOL! Too much show and tell for me. LOL!!!
JDC said…
”Does being Pro-Life trump his sin of infidelity to Jenny Sanford?”
From a practical, political perspective, if the only way to not elect him was to elect someone who is pro-choice, then the answer is yes. When it comes to politicians, I care more about their policies than their personal lives. “
And that right there folks is why your side is losing and will forever lose. If you are a Christian, JDC, then you should be ashamed of yourself and repent of the sin of idolatry. The idolatry of another person’s political policy above God’s Kingdom which trumps all things American. The idolatry of America Worship which is tied part and parcel to the political system from which the idolatry of political policies springs forth.
And also the idolatry of adultery. Yes…JDC…whether you are a constituent of Mark Sanford’s or not, more people who worshiped his policies than not, just like you, voted him back into office. Which means every single one of them, including you, are guilty of adultery as well simply because you and the rest condoned his CONTINUING ADULTERY in order to see his political policies in place.
This is doubly so….because there is money involved. The taxpayers of South Carolina are footing his bills, including his CONTINUING ADULTEROUS TRYSTS with his mistress, through his taxpayer funded paycheck every single month. Not to mention his insurance, his pension and all the perks of power.
That despicable adulterous creature destroyed his family over a piece of flesh…..and without repentance and a change of action (like kicking his mistress to the curb and getting back with his wife and kids) you and his like minded constituents gave him approval for what he did. Just because of a political policy.
And that, JDC, is idolatry. And you wonder why God has turned his face from this country and the Church and millions of babies still get slaughtered to this day.
With allies to the pro-life cause like you…..who needs Satan to stand in our way?
JDC isn’t a Christian.
I gotta say Danny, at least you don’t pick and choose Biblical laws to apply to only certain groups. You seem to be lacking in the “love and charity” department though lol.
I appreciated the observations about the future of marriage. I think it is true that it is possible that the next generation, if they are wise, may force themselves to ask not only what a marriage is but what a Christian marriage is. Something I didn’t contemplate near enough.
There isn’t a problem. Gay marriage is becoming legal, not mandatory. Churches don’t have to conduct gay weddings. Gay people who’d rather adhere to their faith don’t have to get married. Gays getting married has zero impact on existing and future heterosexual marriages.
Cartoon number 2 is worse than pathetic given the truth about who has done what in regard to voting fraud and discrimination.
Jack said…
I gotta say Danny, at least you don’t pick and choose Biblical laws to apply to only certain groups. You seem to be lacking in the “love and charity” department though lol.
Ask Jesus if He thought His Father was full of “love and charity” when the cosmic impartation of the world’s past, present and future sin came upon Him and the Father turned His face from Jesus to wit Jesus cried out….
“My God, My God….why have you forsaken me?”
There is a time and season for everything. But when I see a lie from the Pit of Hell such as supporting a non-repentant liar, who is part of a quasi-Christian political cult called the Family…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
who is working for an American Theocracy and believes the lie that God is totally finished with His Covenant People…the Jews….well…..forgive me…..but love and charity are not in season from me right now.
I think JDC is secular Pro-Life (not sure atheist though) but dude read the New Testament not just the Old.
Han,
It’s true, though, that we are presenting a hypocritical argument when we condone second and third ‘marriages’ but make a big hubub about gay marriage. Fact is, if we’re making noise, it needs to be consistent noise. Marriage is sacred? Act like it. Start taking it seriously, before you enter into the commitment. As Christians, we also need to start refusing to stand at weddings that aren’t respecting the sanctity of the Sacrament. We need to be more consistent in what we expect and demand. Divorce is a dangerous thing, and until we treat it as such, our railing against gay marriage is going to go unheard by those who need it.
Oh…BTW….if you supported Sanford….whether in principle or as an actual constituent….congratulations. You just flushed your family values (which include pro-life values) and your credibility down the toilet.
But hey….at least you still have your policies.
“So then toss out the opinions of those who haven’t followed their marriage vows perfectly.”
Divorce isn’t following marriage vows imperfectly. Divorce is failing to follow them at all.
John-O said…..
I think JDC is secular Pro-Life (not sure atheist though) but dude read the New Testament not just the Old.
OK…….
Matthew 12:34
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Matthew 23:27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.
Luke 3:7
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Galatians 1:6-10
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[a] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Revelation 22:15
(Jesus speaking) Outside the city are the dogs–the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.
I could go on but you get the point. You, like the vast majority of Christians, still believe that the Old and New Testaments are separate pieces of work….almost from two separate Gods. E V E R Y book of the Old Testament speaks about and to Christ. E V E R Y book of the New Testament fulfills what was written about both God the Father and Jesus in the Old Testament.
How could one possibly miss this…since God is one with Jesus is one with the Holy Spirit? You know….God in three Persons….Blessed Trinity?
There is no Old Testament or New Testament. There is only the Word. There is only the Gospel. And it begins with Genesis.
Jumbotron,
That is the moniker you chose to stick with.
I deleted the rest. I know you don’t want to break any of the rules of commenting.
Jumbotron,
That is the moniker you chose to stick with.
I deleted the rest. I know you don’t want to break any of the rules of commenting.
You are correct. I do not want to break any of the rules of commenting. Which is why I haven’t going back to 2006 when I first posted something here.
I changed my moniker briefly to Danny-tron as a bit of fun since some people know that I am Danny and others simply call me Jumbotron for the post that you deleted.
Seeing as how there was nothing in the post itself to johnO that broke any of your DO NOTS…I am reposting them here to see if temporarily changing my moniker is a violation.
Do Not’s
Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
No swearing or slandering of others.
No deliberate inflammatory comments.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Nope….nothing there about temporarily changing my moniker as a bit of fun being a violation. So would you be so kind as to point by point go through my last post and inform me for future’s sake where I violated any of your DO NOTS?
Just to give you a chance to show everyone you are fair about what you choose to delete….and to give you the benefit of the doubt that you overlooked this….here is a CLEAR case of a rules violation by Reality and Jack to me. The rules broken were…..
No swearing or slandering of others.
No deliberate inflammatory comments.
Here is what Reality said….
Gee, that jumbotron sounds like a fun guy – or gal. I hope he/she finds somewhere to live that they feel comfortable in. Iran maybe?
And here is what Jack said in response….
Too many Muslims. He/she might like Russia, until their totalitarian issues turn against Christians again. Currently they are against the groups that most Christians have a problem with, so people are happy. But like always, remove rights from one set of people and you can’t be surprised when it happens to you.
To which Reality answered…..
Well that’s a good point Jack. I just thought he’d be happier anywhere that persecutes gays and restricts womens rights so much.
If we lived in England I could bring them both up on charges of slander and win. I know we are not. I also am not bringing this up crying about what they said to me. Since slander is a type of lie on one’s character, once they proved themselves to be liars I could care less what they think. I have not responded to anything else they have had to say about anything, even to a retort addressed to me personally. They do not exist to me as far as I am concerned.
But if you are going to delete a post of mine which, while pointed, did NOT violate a single rule on your site, but allow these two to both slander my character and say something so obviously inflammatory as to be a no-brainer when judged against your explicitly stated DO NOTS then I suggest that Jill find another site moderator who will apply the rules in a more fair and judicious manner.
Remember….pointed, critical debate….even if it is directed towards the “home team” is not inflammatory. Particularly when it is always backed up by stone cold facts.
I await your point by point analysis of my post….so I may know once and for all what is considered a violation here on this site.
Do’s
I have already asked you to stick with a moniker. And now you want me to bend the rules just for you cause you are having a little fun?
Feel free to email Jill Stanek yourself.
jillstanek@jillstanek.com
There are several other moderators here.
I will ask them what they think.
“If we lived in England I could bring them both up on charges of slander and win.” – that would be fun. Unless you have difficulty with comprehension it is obvious that we were postulating on what sort of state would more closely align with the sentiments you had expressed. You had demonstrated great displeasure with gays being accorded some level of equality. The states which were named do not provide any measurable level of equality for gays. No-one accused you of perpetrating presecution.
You might also want to review some of the statements you made during the course of that ‘conversation’.
I think there’s a possibility your soapbox is made of cardboard. There’s also a chance that it may be wet. I’ll let you assess the situation.
I have already asked you to stick with a moniker. And now you want me to bend the rules just for you cause you are having a little fun?
Feel free to email Jill Stanek yourself.
Thank you…I just did.
I have not asked you for a single thing…other than fairness. If you are going to delete my post for violating a DO….then delete the posts that I showed you that still stand at this very second of Reality’s and Jack’s for violating not ONE but TWO DO NOTS. As I also told you before, they can be found in the thread concerning Catholic Apologist: America will never again be a pro-life nation.
I do admire your typing acumen, Jumbotron, because you surely must need a hand free to twirl a finger in the air to enunciate your points. ;)
Back from a vaca – a few quick comments:
1) People have changed monikers here – Kenthebirther changed his with moderator permission.
2) I essay was interesting – I’ve always thought that when the church took something sacred (marriage) and gave it to everyone, they lost a lot of control. I would see the same thing with prayer in school – do you really want to trust prayer to a teacher who might not embrace the same faith as you or your kids?
3) The filibuster – if your side uses it, you love it. If your side gets burned by it, you hate it. I just like when people have to go through and actually deliver it – I think it’s b.s. that at the fed level, they let people just threaten one, and then move on.
4) The voting rights act – terrible decision. One day, the country would have been ready for it, but it isn’t yet.
Jumbotron says:
June 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm
A cartoon lampooning the winning side only highlights the fact that you lost and the only thing you can do about it is lampoon it in a drawing.
Two points:
1) Wendy’s side did not “win.” The pro-life bill was not defeated, as in voted down in the legislature. It was merely delayed by parliamentary tactics and bullying by an unruly mob. The bill is still very alive.
2) The cartoon did not “lampoon the winner.” The cartoon merely pointed out exactly what Wendy’s filibuster was fighting for, and what Wendy’s supporters are really supporting.
The media was focusing on Wendy’s big hair and glitzy outfit. The cartoonist is reminding us that this is really about defending the likes of Gosnell and Karpen and Carhart, and spurning the women and children they have killed.
Cartoon #2 (McCoy on Obama) is a much better example of a lampoon.
Well…Carla, just had time now to check on Jill’s reply about what I think is the capricious way you delete some people’s posts and not others. Looks like the email link you referenced is incorrect. Gmail bounced it back as saying that person does not exist. It did reference past e-mails that I sent to jill@jillstanek.com and jillstanek@comcast.net
I’ll await the correct and/or a different email….as I am still awaiting a point by point explanation of what was such a gross violation of the DO NOTS that caused you to delete the posts. You mentioned sending this to other moderators. What say them?
jill@jillstanek.com
Ex-RINO, Obama is delaying the employer mandate while leaving the individual mandate in place….hmmmm. I guess all the individuals are supposed to fend for themselves… No wait, If your employer doesn’t offer ‘affordable coverage then the individual mandate would not be in effect for the individuals either right? Do you think maybe this ‘delay’ had something to do with putting off the train wreck until after the upcoming mid-term elections?
And what of all the employers who made good-faith efforts to follow the law and restructured their employee shifts and hiring practices. And now Obama unilaterally calls off the law? wth?
What does this do to the CBO projections of Obamacare being a cost savings for the tax-payer? This makes a farce of the fuzzy math the DemocRATs used during the reconcilliation process in order to ram this law down our throats with only a simple majority.
If he hadn’t delayed this he knew even the Democrat’s would be jumping ship and saving their jobs by getting on the side of repeal. Politics……
Thanks for the questions truth – if I didn’t understand health care much, or read the articles coming out on it, I’d ask those questions as well.
This only pertains to the mandate for companies providing insurance. Now, the line is only businesses over 50 employees – so a large chunk don’t even qualify. And statistically, the huge majority of companies over 50 employees already provide insurance – tough to find employers that size that don’t offer insurance. The goal is to streamline the paperwork process for the employers that are already covering people – so this makes their lives easier. It isn’t a huge delay on anything because again, not a ton of companies over 50 employees that don’t offer health insurance.
Doesn’t do much to the CBO projections – early figure I saw was that employer penalties would total $100 billion or so over 10 years.
Ex-RINO,100 billion divided by the $2k penalty per person means you are only projecting that employers would be fined for 50,000 total employees over 10 years. That would be an estimate of 5 thousand employees per year, or about 100 employees per state per year. Sounds unrealistically low.
truth – feel free to do your own research on it – I’m sure the CBO has a lot of math in regards to how they came up with the total.
I was kinda hoping you could explain your numbers or at least provide a link. If you can’t back it up then that is fine. The numbers just don’t seem to add up. I think McDonald’s or Hobby Lobby employees alone would more than cover the 100 employees per state.
It’s in the last CBO report – ten years, 130 billion from employer penalties. Do you need a link to the CBO page? Easy to find if you google it.
Truth your comment was deleted but I do want to apologize to you for taunting you about defaulting on your student loans last week. I was all butthurt that you kept basically calling me stupid so I tried to upset you. Not a good way to relate to people. So, I’m sorry.
“It’s true, though, that we are presenting a hypocritical argument when we condone second and third ‘marriages’ but make a big hubub about gay marriage. Fact is, if we’re making noise, it needs to be consistent noise. Marriage is sacred? Act like it. Start taking it seriously, before you enter into the commitment. As Christians, we also need to start refusing to stand at weddings that aren’t respecting the sanctity of the Sacrament. We need to be more consistent in what we expect and demand. Divorce is a dangerous thing, and until we treat it as such, our railing against gay marriage is going to go unheard by those who need it.”
And I just wanted to say, MaryRose (and Eric too), that I find this refreshing and welcome. When people focus so much on how terrible and sinful gay people are for being in relationships that are “against God” and everything, but shrug off second and third “marriages”, it really just looks like bigotry against LGBT people, not living by a consistent moral code. I realize that divorce and remarriage is more common than homosexuality, so it probably feels like an easier “problem” to tackle than the plethora of people in happy second marriages, but really it just feels like you’re attacking an already marginalized population and ignoring the other very real issues that are against everything you stand for. So thanks for being consistent and presenting a viewpoint that’s a lot more believable than “Gay marriage is making a mockery of marriage, but that guy who’s been married twice? He’s not sinning.” I have respect for consistent viewpoints.
I hope people can understand that ignoring the really big problem of divorce and remarriage (which is JUST as sinful as gay relationships as far as I can tell) is part of the reason people feel like the anti-gay marriage crowd is just wanting to hurt gay people rather than advancing a consistent morality.
And really, people have told me that they hope I get remarried to some nice lady some day (which, I had Biblical reasons for divorcing my ex-wife but as I understand it even if they are unfaithful you are still not allowed to remarry, it’s still adultery to the first spouse even if you’re legally divorced), but have told me in the same breath that it’s a horrible sin to have a homosexual relationship. It’s seriously impossible to take that kind of hypocrisy seriously.
Jack,
I understand about the remarriage thing. I have some very close friends and family who have been on both sides of this. It is a difficult one. Especially when looking at it from the perspective of the partner that was faithful and got dissed. They projected their own love and faithfulness onto their partner who ends up leaving them and they never really had the love they thought they did. I invite guests over to my house on overnights and allow divorced people to share the room with another partner. I struggle with the hypocrisy every day. I will always be truthful to these same friends about the way I feel if it comes up in conversation though.
And thanks for the apology Jack.
Ex-RINO,
The only explanation is that the CBO scores what is put in front of them and what was put in front of them was only a limited portion of the employer fines. But one other thing that sucks about this is that small businesses have been scrambling to figure out what to do about this and the chaos has kept them from expanding and hiring. Another one year extension just means another year of limbo to job growth.
” I understand about the remarriage thing. I have some very close friends and family who have been on both sides of this. It is a difficult one. Especially when looking at it from the perspective of the partner that was faithful and got dissed. They projected their own love and faithfulness onto their partner who ends up leaving them and they never really had the love they thought they did. I invite guests over to my house on overnights and allow divorced people to share the room with another partner. I struggle with the hypocrisy every day. I will always be truthful to these same friends about the way I feel if it comes up in conversation though.”
I do understand that it’s difficult to be consistent on this, especially considering how common divorce, remarriage, and promiscuity is. You’re probably ten times more likely to have several divorced and remarried friends rather than a gay couple as a friend, simply because homosexuality isn’t as common. So I get why it’s easier to be understanding and caring and extend more leniency to couples who are in a second “marriage” than it is to the few gay couples. I just wish you guys would try to understand that if you’re constantly talking about how sinful and immoral gay couples are being, while you’re ignoring those many couples on their second marriage that go to church with you, you’re hurting the gay couples because of your inconsistency. It SUCKS to be told over and over how much worse your sin is than anyone else’s (which is how this inconsistency comes across, even if it’s not meant that way). You start feeling that you must be worse than everyone else in the world, especially if you already have issues with depression or feeling left out. If people want to complain about gay groups being “hateful” towards Christians, you should try to look at it from that point of view. How do you think it makes that gay couple feel when they are constantly told how they are immoral and wrong, when other people in illegitimate relationships are accepted and loved and condoned in their sin? It’s unfair and it comes across as cruelty towards people who already deal with a lot of cruelty towards them.
“And thanks for the apology Jack.”
No problem, I’m “man enough” to admit when I do something mean or wrong. Maybe someday you’ll apologize for the things you’ve said to me. ;)
Jack,
I’ll keep that in mind in case I am ever mean or wrong.
And people on this blog call ME stubborn!
There are intrinsic differences between adulterous sex between a man a woman and homosexuality though. It goes to the core/beginning of God’s design for the family. When God saw Adam needed a partner He created Eve; not Steve.
I will pray on your perspective though and try not be hypocritical in my faith.
“There are intrinsic differences between adulterous sex between a man a woman and homosexuality though. It goes to the core/beginning of God’s design for the family. When God saw Adam needed a partner He created Eve; not Steve.”
I don’t see anything in the Bible that supports this viewpoint. When people get married, God makes them one. There’s nothing in the Bible I can see that supports that a second marriage can ever be legitimate or pro-God’s design for the family. It’s supposed to be you and your first spouse (who should be the only person you’ve ever had sex with) for life, raising your kids. I’m fully willing to admit it if I’m wrong, it’s not my religion and I certainly don’t agree that remarriage or homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t think there is Biblical support for the viewpoint that homosexuality is worse than remarriage. I do realize you’re Catholic and you guys don’t go solely by the Bible, and I don’t know what the relevant catechism or whatever would be. But still, even if being gay is somehow worse than throwing away your first spouse and marrying another, it doesn’t justify the condoning by Christians of second marriages just because it’s not quite as bad being gay.
And I can’t believe you don’t think you’ve ever said anything to me that would require an apology, lol. Oh well.
“When God saw Adam needed a partner He created Eve; not Steve.” – according to all the sciencey stuff people here go on about it must have been Adam and Steve.
His name’s not ‘truthseeker’ for no reason Jack ;-)
“I do realize you’re Catholic and you guys don’t go solely by the Bible, and I don’t know what the relevant catechism or whatever would be. But still, even if being gay is somehow worse than throwing away your first spouse and marrying another, it doesn’t justify the condoning by Christians of second marriages just because it’s not quite as bad being gay.”
1) To be clear in understanding of Catholics. Catholics do consider respect for Apostolic traditions as a part of guidance towards proper conscience; but the catechism would never condone traditions that go against scripture; only traditions that are shown to us in scripture.
Through discussion with other Christians I have found that not all share my belief that some sins are graver than others. But the Lord’s mercy is unbounded and forgiveness for the gravest of sins is available if only one repents and truly seeks forgiveness.
” 1) To be clear in understanding of Catholics. Catholics do consider respect for Apostolic traditions as a part of guidance towards proper conscience; but the catechism would never condone traditions that go against scripture; only traditions that are shown to us in scripture.”
I do understand this, and I wouldn’t dream of accusing a Catholic or the CC in general of not caring about the Bible. The way it was explained to me is that Catholics believe that the Bible is the basics of God’s Word, and the catechism and other traditions expand and fill this out.
” Through discussion with other Christians I have found that not all share my belief that some sins are graver than others. But the Lord’s mercy is unbounded and forgiveness for the gravest of sins is available if only one repents and truly seeks forgiveness.”
Well, then like I said, people who claim to be living a Christian life and are married to a second spouse need to leave them and repent, and either live in celibacy or remarry their first spouse. I don’t see a workaround for this in scripture, even if it’s much worse to be gay (which I do think some Christian traditions do believe that being gay is worse, but I don’t know any denominations that can take an honest look at the Bible and get that it ever in a million years condones second marriages). Otherwise, you’re just picking and choosing what’s convenient and less painful (it’s easy to condemn gays, there are few of them and you don’t have to look at the struggle every day in church like you would if everyone left their second spouse like they should).
and then with all that incest and inbreeding in an attempt to get a population started, we’re luck we didn’t end up back in the trees!
You are correct that repentance is a component of forgiveness for all kinds of sins and not just homosexuality. That is why I think it is important for a person to be honest in condemnation of sin rather than politically correct and non-judgmental. Sometimes this comes across to you as lacking in the love and charity; but now that understand the importance of repentance maybe you will understand that I have the person’s best interest at heart.
Ex-RINO,
United healthcare has just joined Aetna in bailing on California’s health care market. That will make 58,000 Californians who will lose their current insurance due to Obamacare. According to United Healthcare “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California.”
“You are correct that repentance is a component of forgiveness for all kinds of sins and not just homosexuality. That is why I think it is important for a person to be honest in condemnation of sin rather than politically correct and non-judgmental. Sometimes this comes across to you as lacking in the love and charity; but now that understand the importance of repentance maybe you will understand that I have the person’s best interest at heart.”
No, I think it’s lacking in love and charity because you’re specific about what you have understanding for, even if you know that they should repent. Like I said, it’s really, really difficult (and I do try, even if it doesn’t come across) to accept that you guys think everyone’s a sinner if you’re treating gay as something akin to rape or something horrific like that, rather than something that’s a sin according to the Bible but more on the level of remarriage or premarital sex. But, that’s just what I see in these conversations, it could just be me.
Jumbotron,
Your posts are back up.
I apologize for the way it seemed that I deleted without cause.
Jack and Reality,
I would ask that you take it down a notch with new(er) commenters.
You have both been here a long time. Some may not appreciate your style of commenting and may take offense.
Truth, Jack,
Jack hits on an important note here: those in remarried circumstances are living in their sin without repentance also. It is critical to note that we are called to be a witness to these people.
One of the things that makes homosexuality so deadly to the soul is that it is a sin by which a group of persons defines themselves. “I am gay.” Remarried individuals don’t typically get their self-identity through their sin, ie “I am an adulterer.” This is a reason why it is important that we do speak out, but with love and compassion. Spitting out viciousness will only encourage people struggling with sexuality to turn more fully to the sinful identity which they have grown to accept.
What I find to be a big problem about remarriage, though, is that it is a sin which we justify and allow within Christian communities. I’ve heard of Catholics getting married by the Justice of the Peace specifically so that they can get divorced and never have been married by the Church, thinking that it absolves them from sinning somehow. As though what keeps us from sin is the Pontificate not knowing. We need to stop accepting this lukewarm devotion to Scripture and Tradition. If your child got divorced and remarried, would you respond in the same way as if your child procured a gay marriage certificate? Would you stand at their second wedding?
It is not easy to lovingly and compassionately call someone to repentance. It takes great time and patience and commitment. It takes truly seeing in that person the image of God. It is something we must do. In fact, it is inextricably linked with a consistent Christian identity.
I’ve heard of Catholics getting married by the Justice of the Peace specifically so that they can get divorced and never have been married by the Church, thinking that it absolves them from sinning somehow.
??? They started out their marriage planning for their future divorce? How…sad and misguided.
??? They started out their marriage planning for their future divorce? How…sad and misguided.
Lrning,
I kid you not. But isn’t that what a prenup is, essentially? :( The things we accept :(
When God saw Adam needed a partner He created Eve; not Steve.”
God also did not create Adam and Eve for awhile then Adam and Trixie when Adam and Eve had irreconcilable differences.
The same Scripture used to denounce homosexuality denounces divorce and remarriage. To clarify, the tradition in Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is divorce/remarriage is allowed if the other partner committed adultery or deserted the marriage. (from Matthew 9:19 and Matthew 5:31-32)
Sorry Carla won’t happen again.
” One of the things that makes homosexuality so deadly to the soul is that it is a sin by which a group of persons defines themselves. “I am gay.” Remarried individuals don’t typically get their self-identity through their sin, ie “I am an adulterer.” This is a reason why it is important that we do speak out, but with love and compassion. Spitting out viciousness will only encourage people struggling with sexuality to turn more fully to the sinful identity which they have grown to accept.”
Except that remarried individuals do define themselves by their sin, like “I’m John, Sarah’s husband” when he’s really, in the eyes of God, married to Liz. It might be much worse to be gay, I guess, but I think that people to define themselves by their remarriage status.
Jack, you make excellent sense. Discussions of these topics around marriage bring up some good points: which is more harmful to a child, a homosexual couple who never attempts to raise children, or a heterosexual divorce when kids are involved? Divorce results in children having broken homes and often involves one parent alienating him/herself from the children or being alienated by the custodial parent. These aren’t insignificant points.
Children from broken homes are twice as likely to engage in sex before the age of 16 compared to children living with both parents (as reported in the UK Telegraph Sep 8, 2000). Teen sex, unwanted pregnancies, abortion … the issue of broken homes is a life issue.
“Discussions of these topics around marriage bring up some good points: which is more harmful to a child, a homosexual couple who never attempts to raise children, or a heterosexual divorce when kids are involved? Divorce results in children having broken homes and often involves one parent alienating him/herself from the children or being alienated by the custodial parent.”
Well yeah, this is what I think. I mean, I get that Christians think that homosexual couples are destroying society and everything and engaging with perversion and deviancy and everything, which is fair enough. Maybe we are. I just don’t understand why people don’t realize that divorce and remarriage does the same. And in reality, divorce and remarriage is a lot more common and a lot more likely to affect children. Kids are much, much more likely to grow up in a broken home without their father than they are to grow up in a gay household.
Understood Carla :-)
Thank you Jack. :)
Thank you Reality. :)
Jack, Eric,
Good points. I’ll have to think & pray on them. Honestly, homosexuality isn’t a subject I do great loads of research on, but I do tend to agree that those of us who consider it a sin need to find better consistency on the matter of marriage, “remarriage,” “gay marriage,” and other such issues.
truth – the United and Aetna decisions make sense – the exchanges, an idea long supported by conservatives, promote competition within states. Many companies signed up for the California exchanges, but not those two, which held a relatively small amount of individual plans in the state. Since they aren’t on the exchanges, it would be even tougher for them to compete.
Your question/statement was factually wrong though – those companies pulled out of the INDIVIDUAL policy market, but they do have employer group policies – just not much.
It is another 58,000 individuals who will be losing their current coverage and will be forced to get a new policy on the Obamacare Exchange.
truth (and the person who liked truth’s comment, though I’m guess it is truth himself) -
In the world of health care reform, the 58,000 people will easily be able to get new coverage – they’ll be able to buy insurance on a health care exchange where 13 other companies are going to operate, post the plans in easy to understand language, and individuals cannot be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
In the world you argue for – the world you want, people who find themselves without an insurance carrier could be simply denied coverage because they’ve had issues in the past. They’d be left out in the cold forever.
So you get off your high and mighty horse about some people having to change coverage, and realize that in the world YOU support, millions more wouldn’t have insurance, and people in a situation like this, where an insurance company stops selling in a state, those people could really be left in the cold, in a system where LEGALLY, these companies can just say “nope, we won’t take you”.
That’s what you support. Own it.
MaryRose,
I love your comment, “Marriage is sacred? Act like it. Start taking it seriously, before you enter into the commitment.” Well said.
I think you are the one that needs to get off your high rose Ex-RINO. You are the one forcing people into a nirvana that you made up for them and exists only in your mind. Reality is that you will be forcing these people to purchase plans they never would have otherwise chosen and with deductibles that they can’t afford.
Ah, typical truth-make-er-upper.
First, you’re upset that all these folks are going to lose insurance coverage. Now you’re upset that they might have to get plans they don’t want, though you have no idea, stats, facts, or anything else to back that up.
Hey – you conservatives love health care exchanges – it was your idea in the first place, and most any conservative will say that competition needs to be created between these plans. So now you are saying that the exchanges don’t promote competition? So is your new solution a single payer? Or less competition?
Who knows, and your answer will change in a day or two anyway, so don’t bother even answering.
My point was just one more very simple example of people who are being forced off of their current health insurance plan by Obamacare. Why do you find it necessary to go into criticize/denial mode when you are faced with such simple facts?
This train wreck known as the ‘Affordable Care Act’ is a country of people and businesses being regulated by HHS and taxed by the IRS and will inevitably be a mountain of legal fees involving compliance. For now , in order to delay the train wreck and stem the tide of litigation, the Obama Administration has chosen a strategy of just picking and choosing the parts of the law they will enforce.
truth – you just aren’t sticking to the right wing talking points. When you first talked about California, you said people would lose insurance. Now you say they’ll have to switch insurance plans. The right wing talking point is switching doctors – you never got to that one.
I do, in part, agree that it will be a lot of regulations and compliance – this last battle cry of trying to do health care in the free market, it really requires that. If we want to simplify things, go to a single payer.
It’s not just that people lose their doctors when they get forced off their insurance and onto Obamacare Exchange policies. The doctors themselves also object to Obamacare because they don’t like the government mandating and regulating the care between doctors and patients.
Ex-RINO, often you agree Obamacare has problems and state that single payer is the best solution. The single payer systems I have read about are all government run and bean-counters push family reduction services as a cost savings measure. Is that what you find also?
LOL, truthseeker, apparently you aren’t supposed to deviate from “right wing talking points”. Get with the program.
“LOL, truthseeker, apparently you aren’t supposed to deviate from “right wing talking points”. Get with the program.”
It’s more that truthseeker jumps from complaint to complaint, never resolves a complaint or backs it up with sources, and amusingly his complaints contradict each other at times. I think that was the gist of Ex’s comment.
Lrning, now we both know that objecting to government mandated health care makes a person right wing.
Lrning – Jack sums it up great – 75% of truth’s complaints, after further exploration, are things that he would also support. Though 75% is probably generous, because he typically completely changes the subject, or gives such odd answers, that it’s tough to point out his actual beef.
If you’d like to jump in and stick up for some of truth’s points though, feel free!
truth – on your 11:29 post – no, that’s not generally what I find.
I wonder though, why does that bug you so much, yet you fully support the old status quo, in which many went without health care and ultimately died because of that? Does it make you happier if people die in the free market?
“truth – on your 11:29 post – no, that’s not generally what I find.”
Ex-RINO, that is puzzling to me. Can you cite some examples of the single payer systems you have come across that do not promote family reduction services as a cost savings measure?
Jack,
I’ll try to stay on point for you here. Ex-RINO just said he does NOT agree with my assertion that most single payer systems I have come across promote family reduction services as a cost savings measure. I asked him to back it up with some examples. We shall see who really sticks to there points and backs it up and who insults and changes the subject. Feel free to jump in and speak for him again though if you think you can analyze what he has said thus far and can help him make his point about single payer and family reduction services.
“I wonder though, why does that bug you so much”
Seriously Ex-RINO. Have the pro-aborts become that brazen? You are now willing to openly say you can’t understand why anybody would be opposed to government run family reduction service centers? Are you thinking people in China or Europe when you are saying that?
As a caveat; There are still some places in Europe ‘Ireland is one example’ where the people have refused to accept government sponsored family reduction services.
truth –
Sure – but I want to make sure we’re on the same page regarding definitions.
Define for me, what you mean by:
“Family Reduction Service Centers”
Also, what constitues a country or program that is single payer.
Thanks,
You didn’t need a definition when you said you disagreed with me so go with your own definition that you used to disagree with me and tell me the ones you had in mind. And if it helps keep you from getting confused then feel free to leave the word “Centers” out of it since that was not part of the phrase used when you had disagreed and only came up in a later post.
Like I said Jack….
truth -
By family reduction service centers, I picture liposuction centers for the full family, reducing the size of those families. I haven’t seen that pushed in single payer systems.
Jack, what say you about his response?
What I say is that he would deny that family reduction services even exist and that he mocks the pro-life cause.
What do I think about his response? I think he’s being sarcastic because you don’t define exactly what you mean.
I’ll help you out, are you simply talking about abortion being considered legit healthcare under single payer systems and covered like other procedures? Then I would say, you have a point than many universal healthcare systems do treat abortion like any other preventative care type thing. I think that’s wrong, and it’s certainly possible to have a universal healthcare system without abortion being covered, just look at Ireland. There’s no reason the US can’t have a universal system without covering abortion and I’m sure pro-life groups will work to those ends.
If you’re talking about contraception being considered a preventative service and being covered for free like other preventative services, I think you’re simply complaining that the world doesn’t follow your moral code. A lot of people find contraception necessary, that’s the way it is. A single payer system will actually benefit Catholic institutions, btw, because unlike the HHS mandate we have currently they won’t be required to provide their employees with plans that cover contraception (I think the mandate is wrong, just to be clear).
“I think he’s being sarcastic because you don’t define exactly what you mean.”
Jack, we are all entitled to our opinions and imo the sarcasm is used to avoid subject matter you are uncomfortable with. As I told Ex-RINO previously the ‘family reduction services’ I am referring to are any services that prevent or terminate the life of the unborn and/or expedite the death of the elderly. Reason – cause it costs less money to terminate and reduce the length of life then it does to grow, nurture and heal.
“As I told Ex-RINO previously the ‘family reduction services’ I am referring to are any services that prevent or terminate the life of the unborn and/or expedite the death of the elderly. ”
When did you say that? First time it has appeared on this thread. And if you defined it earlier, why raise such a stink regarding defining it again?
OK, now this thread is getting silly.
JDC,
What is silly about the fact that most single payer government run health care systems promote services that prevent or terminate the life of the unborn and/or expedite the death of the elderly as a way to reduce overall cost?
Actually, I was just saying the way people are interacting with each other at this point comes off as silly, less so anything about the content being discussed.
“When did you say that?”
Ex-RINO, You said it and I agreed with you.
I guess you ‘forgot’ because you denied ever having the conversation then too.. LOL It was the last conversation we had with one another prior to this thread… right before you went on vacation. Seriously, look at the Sunday funnies from 6/23 as a reference if you are really having problems remembering but actually you denied having talked about it on that thread too. Reference – June 24, 2013 at 7:13 am
Jack, is this still sarcasm?
“I was just saying the way people are interacting with each other at this point comes off as silly”
I see JDC. I used to think the liberal minds ability to put itself into denial was silly; it used to somewhat amaze me. Now I see it as more a debilitation that they need to address in order to get well.
truth – I said multiple times during that conversation that I wasn’t reading anything not related to the topic at hand – and that topic wasn’t the focus – so no, I didn’t read those posts.
If you look at abortion rates around the world, you’d be hard pressed to say that single payer encourages abortion. In fact, it seems in many places that the security that universal health care grants makes it easier for people to make the decision to have a child. Again – look at a list of countries with single payer systems, and a list of countries and their abortion rates, and tell me if you can deduce anything differently.
Now, I will say that, in the world, and within countries and companies, there are limited funds available – and as prices rise, countries and companies will look for ways to control costs. In health care, a major cost is the last few months of somebody’s life. There are some people who say a 90 year old should be eligible for a heart transplant. Others say that over certain ages, some of those types of care should be rationed or not allowed. Is that family reductions – I don’t know by your definition. Heck, some people freak out simply if conversations are held with old people regarding DNR status and end of life care.
Last thoughts – private insurance companies aren’t a bottomless pit of money either. They’ve survived for years by simply throwing people off of health care plans, so I wouldn’t pretend that they just pull out their pocket books and pay for anything and everything. Lifetime caps – remember those?
Also, let me ask you this – if I propsed a law that said that we’d ration no care for anybody at any age – if a 95 year old wanted any treatment they could name, we’d pay for it – and at the end of the year, we’d simply raise taxes if needed to cover that program – would you support raising taxes to pay for those services?
“I said multiple times during that conversation that I wasn’t reading anything not related to the topic at hand – and that topic wasn’t the focus – so no, I didn’t read those posts. ”
So you read them; and see they are not the topic you want to discuss and so you magically unread them so you can deny having ever read them at all. ok
“Also, let me ask you this – if I propsed a law that said that we’d ration no care for anybody at any age – if a 95 year old wanted any treatment they could name, we’d pay for it – and at the end of the year, we’d simply raise taxes if needed to cover that program – would you support raising taxes to pay for those services?”
Our government has proven time and again that it is inept and incapable or using our tax dollars wisely. So my answer would be no. IMO it is foolish to believe our government would make better use of money then we could do ourselves. I would rather manage my own hard-earned money to resolve these health care problems. I am not against people supporting one another but I would follow the principle of subsidiarity and come together voluntarily as a community to help one another. I’d rather keep control of my earning and give to the fund-raisers or charitable causes I believe in like Children’s Memorial or tithing to the church or a local crisis pregnancy center or the Lions club or the Knights of Columbus or a fund-raiser for the 95 year old lady’s heart transplant.
Or the Salvation Army or the Red Cross or an earthquake relief fund or a hurricane relief fund or a homeless person I run into….there are endless places I would rather give my money to then taxes to a government full of cronies and kickbacks and bureaucracy.
truth – that might be the biggest cop-out answer I’ve seen in a while – talk about taking the side road – or no road at all. “All old people that need services, just kick them off government programs and let charities pay for them”.
Maybe you should just start talking about unicorn, or santa claus or something. I mean, seriously – just get rid of medicare, medicaid, and bring forth more community suppers for fund raisers? Come on. What a nothing answer that shows you don’t understand the problems involved.
Thanks for nothing truth.
Thats ok Ex-RINO. You can just magically un-remember that post too if you’d like.
truth – I remember the thread just fine – I just didn’t read your posts very closely because they weren’t relevant to the topic at hand.
Look – you can continue these games all you want – writing irrelevant posts, liking your own posts yourself to boost your ego, and dodging any hard questions. You can continue to post conspiracy theory articles – wrong info – and you can continue to do so in the shelter of a massive misunderstanding of how health care and the general economy works. I’ll continue to be patient with you, but I’m not going to play your games thread after thread. This last question you dodged big time – as you typically do. Start to step up, figure out what you actually do support, and start supporting it. This hit and run style of posting is getting old.
By the way – I’m not going to like my own post – but I am going to unsubscribe to this thread shortly – so say something relevant quick – if not, don’t expect me to answer, because I won’t know about it.
Ex-RINO,
This blog is about current events related to abortion. You can’t even admit that the bean counters who oversee single payer systems in the UK and elsewhere promote contraception and free abortion as cost saving measures so lets move to something else.
If a 95 year old can’t get a heart transplant then what good is it to have insurance policies with no lifetime cap?
truth -
What is the abortion rate in the US, and the abortion rate in the UK?
Ex-RINO, Why did you ignore my question?????? Are you magically unreading posts again?
If a 95 year old can’t get a heart transplant then what good is it to have insurance policies with no lifetime cap?
truth – I didn’t think it was a serious question – do you really want me to answer that question for you, and the person that liked your question (yourself)?
I’m giving you your one chance to withdraw it – let me know.
So, now we have two Sunday funnies threads going at once? Interesting.
Ex-RINO, if a 95 year old and her doctor decide upon a treatment but the health insurance agency refuses to pay anything towards her treatment then the no lifetime cap is phony.
Sometimes questions are good questions – sometimes questions are worded poorly – and sometimes questions are so ignorant that they really shouldn’t be answered. I gave you the chance to step away…but you want it answered, so here we go.
Lifetime caps are not something that actually travels with an INDIVIDUAL. Truthseeker is one person – a lifetime cap would not say that truthseeker receives so much insurance coverage in his life, regardless of who is paying. Instead, a lifetime cap says that IN A SPECIFIC PLAN TRUTHSEEKER IS INVOLVED IN, that there is a cap in spending. Private insurance historically has had lifetime limits. This essentially allows an insurance company protection. For instance (and I can post articles if you’d like) – if you had a child with severe health issues, insurance companies have historically been able to cap how much they spend with these lifetime caps – so after a while, they can just say “we’re done, you’re on your own”.
MEDICARE IS A GOVERNMENT PLAN. It is not private insurance. There are no lifetime caps (http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/features/health-reform-effects-on-medicare – read the first couple of paragraphs).
A 95 year old would NOT have to worry about lifetime caps – they would be on MEDICARE.
So now that we’ve sorted it out, let’s go back to original question.
Medicare, at some point, will spend more money that it takes in. Do you believe we should simply raise taxes to cover the shortfall? Or would you run a deficit and simply spend more than we take in? Or would you prioritize the care people get – trimming some types of care, or not allowing things like certain services – like the ones we talked about?
Do you understand how lifetime caps work now? Again, you obviously think they travel with an individual from plan to plan. That is NOT correct.
I always knew lifetime caps apply to a given policy. I have seen my lifetime cap ‘restart’ several times each time I switched to a new insurer. What I am saying is that it does no good to have no lifetime caps if you and your doctor determine you should get a surgery and your insurance company determines you are not worth it.
truth – so now you’re against insurance companies?
You are lying – your statement, quite clearly, was that a 95 year old would be under a plan with a lifetime cap. So either you think a lot of 95 year old’s are on private insurance, or you don’t understand Medicare.
Regardless – second time – “Medicare, at some point, will spend more money that it takes in. Do you believe we should simply raise taxes to cover the shortfall? Or would you run a deficit and simply spend more than we take in? Or would you prioritize the care people get – trimming some types of care, or not allowing things like certain services – like the ones we talked about?”
Nobody but the patient and their doctor should be making the decisions about surgery. As far as taxes go. Try to un-un-remember my post above about trusting the government with more money and expecting them to solve your problems.