Pro-life video of the day: New music video tells Obama to “Get Out”
Ryan Bomberger, known for his role as founder of The Radiance Foundation, a life-affirming organization that has become a major threat to Planned Parenthood with its bold TooManyAborted.com campaigns, has launched the separate endeavor, SoOutLoud.com, to more freely deal with political issues that are outside of the scope of his nonprofit role.
As a conservative, adoptee, and adoptive father who upholds famed orator Frederick Douglass (a Republican) as a profound source of inspiration, Bomberger is determined to create messaging that’s fearless, factual, and freeing.
He writes:
I’m as black as Obama, and I’m tired of any legitimate criticism of the President’s policy reduced to ludicrous charges of racism. Obama and the Democrat party have been recklessly defying our Constitution with a whole lot of hope and change that most Americans do not want…. It’s our duty to hold our government accountable. Both parties are guilty of diminishing the Constitution with thousands of pieces of legislation that only put layers of separation between Americans and our guaranteed Constitutional liberties. The Democrats – the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, anti-women’s suffrage movement, the KKK, abortion, and generational welfare – is also the party of reconstruction as it dangerously dismantles the Constitution. This video just says out loud what many others are feeling.
The bold and original 2-minute animated music video, calling for President Obama to “get out” was released yesterday:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1863htDj2jo&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]
E-mail dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: Jill]
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.
Stickers and t-shirts will be available tomorrow July 12, noon from SoOutLoud.com
Pretty sad when years ago, we had an informed voting base that understood the issues of the world, debated thoughtfully and respectfully, and voted accordingly.
Now we’ve reduced politics to slogans that fit on bumper stickers and horrid little pop songs. The dumbing down of America…
Great pop song. The young people love pop songs! Get it out on FB!
Ex:
I have to agree with you. Back when Democrats actually stood for something other than abortion and boys marrying boys there was a chance for discussion and dialog. Today the brainwashed masses are looking for their next government handout and will vote for who is most likely to provide it. Obama is counting on the “dumbed down” crowd to give him another term.
The dumbing down of America has not happened overnight…a great deal of has to do with–most ironically–the very institutions that ”educate” us. Believe it or not back in the day the junior college in our area offered basket weaving for a credit course! This is not a slight to the fine basket weavers we may have here…but c’mon! The point is that money spent building and staffing our schools and setting educational priorities could be managed much, much better…don’t you agree?
The sad truth is that “education” in America has become increasingly secularized and is under the control of a watchful education establishment that oftentimes puts their own interests above the students. Hence we see a conniption fit every time someone proposes giving parents more choices as to where they send their kids…”voucher” is a dirty word if you talk to the major teacher’s unions. The amount of money spent “educating” students on all levels on a per capita basis has ballooned, but our test scores have remained at basically the same levels when compared to 40 years ago.
See Jerry – but you can’t even give a decent, well thought out advice without starting it with stupid, thoughtless statements.
Go to fox news – read the headlines – go to drudge and do the same – try to tell me that this is a one sided issue.
NEITHER SIDE SAYS ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE
NEITHER SIDE SAYS ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE
… Therefore, you will vote Democrat.
Yup. Makes total sense.
Kel
What?
So if I voted Republican, that would make more sense?
I actually do vote Republican from time to time – as the tea party has taken over, I find the GOP less attractive.
I do think both parties though dumb down their message – and cheezy pop songs like this one (or that weird Obama girl) don’t help.
“Buh-Bye”.
Indeed. From your lips…
NEITHER SIDE SAYS ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE
I disagree.
This ad is very rich in substance. BHO is a liar and has failed this country.
Richard -
Rich in substance?
Substance?
Is that a joke?
‘BHO’s got to go dontchya know’
Are you serious?
I’d be embarrassed if my fourth grader thought it was “of substance”.
The whole thing is cheezy music layered over 15-20 bumper sticker phrases. I honestly feel dumber for actually watching it – not because I disagree with the message – but because the message isn’t worthy of an educated mind.
It’s like going to a restaurant and continually ordering cotton candy. Might be a little cute, but doesn’t actually help anybody out in the long run.
“this ad is rich in substance”. That’s the best line I’ve heard all night. I’m really praying that you were the one who liked your own comment – because it would be unbelievably lame if two people on this board (you and another) think this is rich in substance.
I mean, do we need to define the word ‘substance’ here?
I mean, do we need to define the word ‘substance’ here?
I think we might. Not sure how much depth you’re expecting in a 1:53 song, but this one touched on quite a few topics of “substance”:
– the slick marketing of the first Obama campaign
– redefinition of marriage
– freedom of religion
– government spending
– the economy
– Obamacare
– race/racism
– the fast & furious scandal
Lol, losing battle you are fighting here, Ex my man. But I do agree with you and I mostly dislike Obama. I am not really old enough to remember an even somewhat sane political atmosphere, but I swear in the last three years it has gotten just ridiculous. I mean, a POP video. That’s informative. I certainly got what I need to make an informed decision on who to vote for.
Yes Lrning – and what was in the depth, message of substance about the redefinition of marriage?
Spell out the logical argument that the video makes in regards to the redefinition of marriage.
Or any of those subjects.
I’m not expecting any DEPTH from a pop song. Quite frankly, I’m wishing neither side tried to make their political arguments in a pop song. Or on a bumper sticker. Or on misleading commercials. I’d like sides to make their opinions in policy papers, issue statements, and editorials. This is a Presidential campaign – we are picking a leader, not choosing a type of pop or a new car.
Heck, I think we get more substance from some car commercials!
Heck, people that might not understand the full issues after hearing the pop song just might research them for themselves!
It’s not like we’re getting any DEPTH from the media or anything. Keep ’em in the dark.
Ex-GOP, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t give “likes” to my own comments as some of the participants on this board have the narcisistic habit of doing.
However, Ryan’s ad was not geared towards Ivy League’s elite, especially when you have less than 2 minutes to make your point.
But since you asked, I challenge you to deploy all your intellectual fire power to make your own 2 min in-depth ad, even if it’s only a transcript.
I’ll be very happy to see it.
The MTV generation doesn’t want to hear or read long arguments about economics, taxation, policy, etc. What they want is someone who promises “Hope” and “Change”. They also love being fed lies, as long as the lies blame “the rich” or religious people for all their woes.
A video like this is far more likely to convince someone not to vote Obama than hundreds of policy papers and editorials explaining how awful the guy is.
We got life on our side, and Obama’s got the death.
What more substance are for talking about, for heaven’s sake?
Ryan Bomberger did a great job getting his message across in less than 2 minutes. It can get young peoples attention and will hopefully perk their interest so they will research his singing “talking points”. I love it. Keep up the good work Ryan. What a great concept especially coming from a bi-racial man who can really get under the skin of radical liberals and rubber-stamp African American Democrats, who insist that everyone has to think just like them or they are a racist “bigot”.
Ex-GOP wrote, “As the tea party has taken over, I find the GOP less attractive.”
What does the tea party stand for that you don’t believe in? Freedom? Private property? Hard work? Responsibility? I’m just curious. I suspect you don’t like capitalism. Capitalism is far from being a perfect system, but it’s the best for the miserably sinful world we live in and will continue to live in until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jon,
The Tea Part Movement was built to counteract infiltrators like Ex-RINO. It was a direct response to the involvement of people like him in our party. Naturally it would repel those like him as light repels cockroaches. ;)
Our party is better without those like him within it.
Prax – yes, people might listen to the pop song and then go do their own research – I hope so.
Richard -
I don’t think a two minute video with ANY transcript is the way to go in a serious discussion.
I’m dogging on the video – the video is fine – I seriously doubt anybody under 40 is going to enjoy the music, but I’m not saying the video has no place in an election.
It just makes me sad that Americans are more swayed by little videos of bumper sticker slogans than actual discussion and substance. It just pains me that we’ve all become so dumb and that the Presidential race spoon feeds that.
I mean, people make fun of the ‘hope and change’ marketing ploy, but they’ve got to remember that McCain and Palin essentially ran on the platform of “we’re Mavericks”. I mean, come on – that was our choice?
Prolifer/John
Yes – I’m sure that the MTV generation is going to put this on their iPods – right in the Kanye West/Jay Z mix.
Or maybe they’ll listen to it after Nicki Minaj.
Jon -
I like capitalism quite much.
What I don’t like is the advancement of a society that would rather fight for a rich man to keep every last dollar than they would for a poor person to have access to health care or any sort of social services safety net.
I believe society should very much have discussion in regards to how much of a safety net to cast – how much government intrusion should be in life – but you’ve got to admit that the tea party is on the far extreme of that view – get government out of everything and simply hope charity is there to pick up the slack. While I think that is a nice dream, I don’t see any evidence of that being a reality to strive for.
Ronald Reagan would be an extremist if the tea party was objective about it – he expanded government payrolls, he brought in heavy deficit spending, his tax rates were much higher than the ones under Obama. He would have no seat on a tea party bus.
xalisae -
Political movements depend on a larger percentage of the population voting for it to put people into office. Any political movement that feels that it is getting stronger by getting smaller is a foolish political movement.
And the tea party has gotten smaller and less influential over the last couple of years (helping the Dems win the Senate certainly didn’t help!).
I think this is their big moment though – I think a Romney win is the death of the tea party – I think a Romney victory and the tea party will get to yell that if a real conservative was in, the GOP would have won. Should be interesting.
Ex-GOP here are my comments to three of your statements:
-“I seriously doubt anybody under 40 is going to enjoy the music, but I’m not saying the video has no place in an election.”
My four kids, age 6-12 LOVE the ad and ask me to play it every night!
-“It just makes me sad that Americans are more swayed by little videos of bumper sticker slogans than actual discussion and substance.”
Your opinion is that Ryan’s video is just a serious of bumber sticker slogans. I don’t agree. It has a very clear and valuable message in a 2 min. format
-“What I don’t like is the advancement of a society that would rather fight for a rich man to keep every last dollar than they would for a poor person to have access to health care or any sort of social services safety net.”
I can tell from your comment that you never lived in a country that has socialized medicine (like the Obamacare) and where the government controls your very life in every aspect. Have you?
I have and believe me, that’s why Europe is collapsing.
Just to give you an example for you to reflect upon, what kind of safety net is a health care that takes 6 months to 1 year (with the risk of having a cancer develop) to have you take an ultrasound of the thyroid, because there are other people “in line” before you ? Would you like that kind of “health care”? Safety nets are necessary, but you have to fear when those safety nets are completely in the hands of governements.
Can you name a program or function that our governement does very well with complete solvency and responsably?
Richard
First of all, none of your kids can vote. Second of all, I’ll continue to maintain that a 20 year old voter has different musical tastes than your 6 year old. I’m maybe off base here – but go out to iTunes, listen to the top 20 songs – just a bit of it. Then listen to that song. That’s all I’m saying.
On the clear message – the clear message is that they don’t agree with Obama. So they put a bunch of bumper sticker slogans to say that. No commentary, no support, just quick slogans.
Europe isn’t collapsing because of universal health care. A few countries have triggered a weakening of the Euro – and those countries spend a relatively low amount of the GDP on healthcare. Greece, for example, is just 2.8%. US is about 15%.
I find your point though very interesting, and I’d like to talk about that.
So, in some places, care is rationed or prioritized, and that is seen as bad.
So why isn’t it like that in the US? Because those who can afford care pay for it, and those who can’t simply don’t get the care.
So are you saying that you are more comfortable with a system in which rationing of care is defined by the ability to pay? That if two people need care – a rich person and a poor person, that the rich person should get the care? That rationing by the government by having lines would be bad, but rationing by wealth is good?
Yes?
Also – can you provide a link on the wait times? Thanks.
Richard -
I apologize – I forgot to answer you questions on countries lived in.
I live in the US and always have. In general, I think the Health Care I’ve received is good.
With that being said, I’ve had a good friend denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions (cancer). She’s also hit the yearly coverage caps before – not a good thing.
In our own life, our employee pool was so poor at a company I was with that insurance was simply too expensive, even through work. We went private market and over the course of 5 years, saw our rates increase about 60% all while also raising our deductive from $1K per person to $3500 per person.
Quite simply, if I hadn’t had left that job and gone elsewhere (to a place with better insurance), we would have never tried to have more kids – it was simply too expensive to be looking at an $8-$9K hospital bill because our insurance was more.
So while abortion rates are a big factor of declining birth rate, I also know countless couples who are delaying having kids simply because of their insurance situation (lack of, not good enough coverage).
But no, I haven’t lived in a country with universal healthcare.
Ex-GOP there’s no link or statistics, only direct experience such as: 3-4 hour wait to sign up for university classes (if you get in line at 6 AM), 2-3 hr. wait at post office to pay bills, 3-6 months wait for x-rays, etc and that’s all “courtesy of your friendly omni-present government”. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone who lived and worked/studied in a western government-run nation.
As the healthcare goes, when people are faced with the 3-6 moth to 1 yr wait for a procedure/test they have three options:
1. They wait until is their turn (hoping it’s not too late to treat)
2. They go privately paying out of pocket for the full amount of the service (no insurance-negotiated rates). These are those you call “wealthy”.
3 Corruption. That is try to find somebody who knows the government employee that gives out appointments and have him/her bribe for an earlier slot, of course all to the disadvantage of those who chose option 1
Also, you have to consider that when you do get the appointment, don’t expect to have the treatment you have here. I remember growing up, my government-paid primary doctor had a clinic with a desk and one chair for him, no chair for me and I had to stand next to a window when he needed to look at my tonsils (he saved on electricity bills by having low lights).
So, believe me, we have it very, Very, VERY good here although not perfect and you may still complain!
In short, for all those who are dying to get Obamacare, you have NO CLUE what you’re asking for!
EX-GOP one more thing on the video. You said “Sever had a 2-min philosophy lecture?
Neither did I.
This video was not meant to be an in-depth analysis of the current status of the American society.
EX-GOP, sorry, in my previous post I was commenting on your statement “So they put a bunch of bumper sticker slogans to say that. No commentary, no support, just quick slogans.”
I meant to say: Have you ever had a 2-min philosophy lecture?
Neither did I.
This video was not meant to be an in-depth analysis of the current status of the American society.
Ex-GOP, you see the civil government as the solution to so much more than I do. However, the civil government is only supposed to punish evil-doers and maintain order. What is evil? For that (morality), the civil government is supposed to heed the authority of the church. Obviously, there’s no place for a government-run “safety net” in all of this. Why don’t you look to the church, in its ministry of mercy, to provide it?
Your word access (as in “access to a safety net”) is misleading. What you really mean is that the rich should pay for the poor. What you really want is a Robin Hood to take from the rich and give to the poor. But the poor have no right to health insurance. As you know, those who are poor in spirit (know themselves to be sinful wretches) inherit the kingdom of heaven as a result of grace. And grace is the province of the church; the state’s business is justice. Contrary to what you imply then, the materially poor have no right to the money (time, work, and power) of the rich. If they want a safety net, they should look to the church for the mercy of Christ. It is unjust of the civil government to enslave the law-abiding rich to the lazy poor. (I’m not saying that the rich are more law-abiding or the poor more lazy. I’m talking about subsets, and the first subset will shrink and the second grow.)
You have far too much faith in the civil government and fallen human nature, and I don’t know why you do. President Bush’s massive Department of Homeland Security and President Obama’s crony capitalism should have been wake-up calls for you. Do you believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? You do realize, don’t you, that Obamatax will only pay for a whole lot more bureaucracy (such as already exists in the UK with the abysmal NHS). The poor will only suffer more in the end. As in the former USSR, those in power will find ways to keep and increase their wealth at the expense of the powerless.
Insurance is something you pay for. Whatever we get for free we tend to abuse. If the rich have to provide health care for the poor, you can be sure that the poor will abuse it. The poor do have access to health care. Nobody prevents them from buying it; they just need the money, which they don’t have and increasingly people like you don’t have. However, health insurance is not a right. In fact, God told Adam that in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, dying he would die. For the wages of sin, we have a right to death, but God tells us to live. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
In God we trust. ”Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins…”
Ex-GOP asked Richard, “So are you saying that you are more comfortable with a system in which rationing of care is defined by the ability to pay? That if two people need care – a rich person and a poor person, that the rich person should get the care? That rationing by the government by having lines would be bad, but rationing by wealth is good?”
Perhaps. You get what you pay for. And everyone knows that an independent doctor can be (and very often in America) has been compassionate. Even I experienced that personal recognition in Canada with a dentist who gave me lower rates because I did not have dental insurance.
Goverment bureaucracy, however, is faceless and merciless. My wife is not a Canadian, and our repeated attempts to get her a Canadian temporary resident visa so she can meet my relatives in Canada have all met with failure and illegible signatures. I’m not saying that the government of my country is not doing its job; in fact, the problem in my wife’s situation is that divorce is too easy in the West and marriage means nothing.
And you aren’t presenting all the options. The first universities and hospitals were run entirely by the church. Even today, I believe, there are Roman Catholic hospitals. Why are you not talking with the government of your church if you believe their health care system is not just? What does the civil government have to do with it? Or do you believe that you (or Sandra Fluke or anybody) should be able as Protestant laity to tell the Roman Catholic clergy how to run their health care system?
Ex-GOP, are you saying that you’re comfortable with the government confiscating more of your money in the name of health care (but not really for health care)? And are you really comfortable with paying for someone else’s hospital bill because he has lived an unhealthy lifestyle? But the civil government has no right to tell him what he should eat, for example. Or are you comfortable with being forced to pay for Sandra Fluke’s illegitimate love-making (even though you already do in the break-down of society and I in my wife’s visa being denied)? If you were a Roman Catholic, would you be comfortable with being forced by your church (because it’s forced by the state) to pay for the very contraceptives that your church says you may not have? What kind of lunacy is this?
And are you comfortable with paying for the killing of unborn children, i.e. their forced abortion? (Isn’t that even the opposite of insurance for their health? What a pack of lies all this health insurance stuff is, at least as presented by the Democrats.)
I’ve made several attempts to edit my comment, but the comment editor doesn’t seem to be working. Anyway, I’m not sure what the exact situation is with regards to Sandra Fluke, so I shouldn’t speculate on whether or not her life is chaste. Jumping to conclusions was apparently Rush Limbaugh’s mistake. However, like him, I’m quite sure that most female university students aren’t taking contraceptives for a disease they have.
On July 12, 2012 at 7:32 am, Ex-GOP wrote, ”What I don’t like is the advancement of a society that would rather fight for a rich man to keep every last dollar than they would for a poor person to have access to health care or any sort of social services safety net.”
Why does the federal government have to take charge of this societal objective of yours (yours because I’m not sure how much I agree)? Why not the state, municipal, ecclesiastic, or family government?
Ex-GOP wrote, “I believe society should very much have discussion in regards to how much of a safety net to cast – how much government intrusion should be in life – but you’ve got to admit that the tea party is on the far extreme of that view – get government out of everything and simply hope charity is there to pick up the slack. While I think that is a nice dream, I don’t see any evidence of that being a reality to strive for.”
Wasn’t that the reality that the founding fathers strove for? that actually was the reality in America? What was the Boston tea party all about?
Ex-GOP wrote, “Ronald Reagan would be an extremist if the tea party was objective about it – he expanded government payrolls, he brought in heavy deficit spending, his tax rates were much higher than the ones under Obama. He would have no seat on a tea party bus.”
I’m not sure that I believe you. For one thing, Ronald Reagan was a Republican, and Republicans have been noted for trying to keep tax rates low (less government intrusion). Deficit spending happens in part because Republicans insist on low tax rates and Democrats insist on high expenditures. From the Republican viewpoint on bureaucratic discipline (if there is such a thing), the less money that was available, the less money that would be spent. Tax rates might be lower under President Obama but that’s despite him, not because of him. Congress was Democrat when it passed Obamatax. President Obama has been utterly reckless with American finances; he doesn’t even propose and fight for passage of serious budgets.
Bottom line: no one is promised a good life or a long life, its not the gov’t’s job to try and provide that. Esp the federal govt. Not cruelty just basic understanding of what says our Constitution says.
I have many relatives by marriage who live in Canada, Spain, & Brazil. Everyone excecpt one person ( whose decided to live off the govt and sit on his butt all day in sask ca) comes to the US for serious surgeries.
Guess who had to wait 6 months for surgery to repair a broken clavical?
” I have many relatives by marriage who live in Canada, Spain, & Brazil. Everyone excecpt one person ( whose decided to live off the govt and sit on his butt all day in sask ca) comes to the US for serious surgeries.”
I don’t even understand these arguments. You realize that here in the US, people simply don’t get these serious surgeries if they are below a certain income level and don’t have access to decent insurance? With all the screaming about rationing and claims of people coming to the US for medical care, you seem to forget the fact that in countries with some form of universal healthcare, people who aren’t wealthy enough to come here for healthcare will eventually get the things that they need. As opposed to here, where they either do without it and deal with terrible health problems or finally get sick enough that an ER legally has to treat them, which is more expensive (and probably won’t get paid). It’s not like universal healthcare is perfect, but trying to pretend that the US doesn’t ration healthcare or that people aren’t doing without is simply stupid. We just do it based on money instead of resource availability. I’m sure that your relatives who can apparently afford to get surgery in other country don’t like their universal healthcare, betcha their less affluent countrymen don’t mind it quite as much.
Jack-
Yes b/c people are dying in the streets everyday in the US…oh wait that would be Brazil with their “socialized medicine”.
My family has no insurance and yet we seem to be able to get medical procedures done, including appendix removal and cpap treatment /supplies for my husband. He makes $16/Hr we are $15k in medical debt with two little girls. But you will never see me turn to my neighbor and demand that he help pay for them. There are numerous ways to get help for medical bills. Govt, church, and hospital payment plans.
I’ve asked EGOP this before. Do you really think bright innovative people are going to kill themselves in Med school to make govt wages?
Govt is not the answer.
All – catching up on some posts here – so if I miss anything, let me know.
Richard -
Forgive me, but I’m not a huge fan of taking the word of one person and saying an entire system is broken because of that. I mean, we’ve had polling places run out of ballots, face long lines, and have issues in past elections, but does that mean our democracy is broken?
Regardless – let’s agree that no nation has stumbled onto the perfect health care system.
You didn’t answer any of my questions though – do you feel that the American system is more moral because we simply control longer lines (though I’d like to see stats on wait times) by saying to some people you can’t have routine care? Ration care based on who can afford and who can’t?
If you look at overall stats – we do have good healthcare, but not the best – many countries have great health care as well and cover many more people.
Jon – I’m going to break up a response into a couple of responses – not long – but just want to keep them separate.
First off – I don’t have tons of faith in the government, but I also don’t have tons of faith in the ability of individual citizens to simply pick up all the slack.
If you could – take a quick read of this article – http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/04/churches-need-strong-federal-programs-to-help-the-vulnerable/
The bottom line is, if the churches in the US were to take all the spending over from the cuts to SNAP (feeding the poor) – that churches would need to pay, on average, $50K a year. Now, efficiencies might be gained by not having the government do it – but I can tell you my church can’t take that burden. My parents church can’t. Some could – but it would be tough.
Take a read of the article though and let me know what you think.
Jon/Jamie -
I’m going to cover this response together.
So you say that the government doesn’t promise a long life and health care. That’s fair.
But let me ask you this then, do you believe EMTALA should be overturned then, and those who can’t afford treatment simply not get treated unless they find somebody to cover it? I’m assuming you find that mandate to be bad and we should get rid of it and let people die – is that your belief? I have follow up thoughts, but would like to see what you think SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EMTALA.
Jon -
On Reagan:
– Reagan raised taxes – as a percentage of the GOP, he has two of the larger tax increases in history. The Dems had their part in it, but Reagan signed it. He did not veto and get overriden.
– Deficit spending happened because government payrolls also increased by a lot. They have gone down under Obama. Up a lot under Reagan. This is a fact.
– I agree that taxes would be higher if Obama had his way – but they would be higher than Bush, lower than Reagan.
– Obama has pushed for serious budgets, but it would cause cuts to things, and both sides freak out about cuts to the people that line their pockets.
Jamie
That is great for you.
You are in the minority though. Most bills for those that are uninsured are never collected. Would you like some stats on that?
Also, I asked this above, sort of – but if, heaven forbid, there was a terrible car accident or somebody in your family had a terrible disease, what do you think should happen?
Jamie – on your last question -
America is number 53 globally on doctors per 100K citizens. Cuba leads with 67 doctors per 100K, Greece is second. US has 24 per 100K.
The problem in America is we drive people towards the specialist market and not general practice – so we have lots of specialty care (hence why people come to the US for surgeries), but we aren’t very good at preventative care (hence why we don’t live as long as other countries).
Ex-GOP
To answer your question if the system we have here is moral.
Think of it this way. In a government-run system you might never get to benefit the health services you really need since you might pass to a better life before then (especially if you are not wealthy or use bribery).
In the US, at least you can still find a job that has health benefits, maybe in another state, but still….
Furthermore, we do have some safety net (there’s always room for improvement here) for those people who fall through the cracks.
Why in the world you would entrust your health to people like Nancy Pelosi, Henry Reid, or Barack Obama?
Do you really think they are going to make true moral decisions for you? How are all the other government programs working out for you?
However why believe me?
Why have you been spending all your life living in the cozy ol’ USA?
Expand your horizons. Take a leave.
Go and live for six months in any European country, Canada, or Mexico for example.
You still have time before the Obamacare starts in full.
You won’t need statistics after that! :)
BHO’s GOTTA GO!
” Yes b/c people are dying in the streets everyday in the US…oh wait that would be Brazil with their “socialized medicine”.”
Nah, that would be Brazil with their screwed up political system and lack of social welfare. Honestly.
Look I have a lot of friends who live in other countries and they would be the first to admit that their healthcare systems are not perfect. However, the idea of being unable to access basic preventative care is so foreign to them that they have trouble believing me. “People go to the ER for things like strep throat????” is a common response. Last time I had strep throat I bought antibiotics of an old drug dealer friend of mine. It was either that or a thousand dollar ER bill. Now how does that make sense? Shouldn’t basic crap like that be more accessible for everyone’s sake?
” My family has no insurance and yet we seem to be able to get medical procedures done, including appendix removal and cpap treatment /supplies for my husband. He makes $16/Hr we are $15k in medical debt with two little girls. But you will never see me turn to my neighbor and demand that he help pay for them. There are numerous ways to get help for medical bills. Govt, church, and hospital payment plans.”
Good for you, especially since your husband makes over double minimum wage. Now, what do you have to say to that single mom of two who has to choose between a medical bill payment and rent? She is obviously going to choose rent, that bill goes unpaid and we all pay the price of higher prices in the long run. I don’t see how that is preferable.
” I’ve asked EGOP this before. Do you really think bright innovative people are going to kill themselves in Med school to make govt wages?”
Yes. They do it in other countries. Ex posted some stats. Regardless, we aren’t keeping up, we are not near the top of the list in regards to length of life, infant mortality, and other markers of good healthcare in developed countries.
Richard -
Can’t just take off – have got a wife and three kids – mortgage, job, the whole works.
And programs are working quite fine for me – we don’t have people starving in this country – I’m able to get to work on roads that have been built – our food is safe – things are good.
So you’ve made a case that in either the US or a government run system, that people get care – the wealthy getting the best and the fastest. The poor in the US don’t get care until they are very sick or deathly ill – in other countries they get it more regularly, though they might have to wait (though we don’t have data on that).
We’ll see what happens though come election day – a long ways to go – Obama wins easily if the election were today, but 4 months is a lot of time. We’ll see what happens.
Have a great night.
EX-GOP here are the statistics for Canada.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/private-cost-of-public-queues-2012.pdf
Have a good night.
Ex-GOP, you made a very revealing comment, in my opinion: ”I don’t have tons of faith in the government, but I also don’t have tons of faith in the ability of individual citizens to simply pick up all the slack.”
To pick up the slack? What slack? That rich people don’t give enough to poor people? Your view of the world is so wrongly dualistic. As Christians, we don’t see the world as first of all being rich and poor, unless we are speaking in spiritual terms. Materially rich people have obtained their riches in various ways and also use them in various ways. Some very rich people, like the seventh earl in England, have used their riches to benefit the large number of people under their care. Some rich people today (perhaps Mr. Romney, for example) manage their wealth very wisely so as to tremendously help shareholders, employees, and customers. The Bible never anywhere says that riches are wrong. It does say that they are spiritually dangerous. And they are a great responsibility.
I’m upset because you would have the government take away my freedom and decide a better way to spend my money. I believe that I will use my money more wisely, more charitably, and more effectively than any civil government ever will. And you and the civil government have no right to my money (my time and work). I will pay the absolute minimum taxes that I have to (which is more than many cheating liberals such as exist in President Obama’s administration). The national anthem of Canada speaks of the true North, strong and free! Canada isn’t that anymore, but the anthem still persists, and I believe in it.
I believe–because I’m a sinner and you’re a sinner and there’s a whole history of the world to back it up–that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Big government is bad.
Ex-GOP asked me to “take a read of the article though and let me know what you think.” (See his comment on July 13, 2012 at 7:03 pm.)
I don’t like it. The author begins it with a wrong interpretation of Proverbs 31:8-9. King Lemuel doesn’t say to his son, “Give food to the poor and needy.” He instructs him to “speak out, judge righteously, [and] defend the rights of the poor and needy.” In other words, kings should not take bribes or discriminate on the basis of wealth. So the author’s rationale for government financial (food) support is faulty.
You wrote, “The bottom line is, if the churches in the US were to take all the spending over from the cuts to SNAP (feeding the poor) – that churches would need to pay, on average, $50K a year. Now, efficiencies might be gained by not having the government do it – but I can tell you my church can’t take that burden. My parents church can’t. Some could – but it would be tough.”
So, what? We see again the problems of a bread dole. It breeds dependency. The federal government probably should never have legislated SNAP to begin with. But do like Paul Ryan, who has, if I recall correctly, tried to find a responsible way to keep existing commitments with regards to government social programs while at the same time phasing them out. Why not?
Richard -
Thanks for posting that. Canada and the US are an interesting comparison. Their per capita spending is about half of what we have in the US – for some services, yes, they do wait for it.
So two questions for you:
1) Why do you think there’s more waiting time in Canada than the US, and if the US expanded their health care, would be suffer those same waiting times (or do you think Americans could figure out a way to solve that)?
2) Is it a benefit to have shorter waits because some people simply can’t afford treatment so they skip it?
Ex-GOP, the unsolicited short answer to your questions to Richard is this: bureacracy isn’t health care. Giving the civil government control over our bodies wastes our money and hurts our bodies. I’m a Canadian.
Jon -
Big government can be bad.
But if big government protects a child from being abuse by having proper social services, I have no issue with that.
If big government has sufficient police on the street and catch some guy raping women, I have no problem with that.
If big government puts a food program together so that a 6 year old doesn’t have to go the day without food, I have no problem with that.
Christians should help out – should do what they can – but we already agree that the government is in a unique position to solve some things collectively that we can’t do individually – for instance, the military.
And if the government can help provide solutions so that people don’t starve on the streets, I’m not going to feel like my freedoms are being taken away.
Budets are moral documents – and if we simply say, “to heck with poor people – let the churches deal with them because we’d rather keep all the money we can get” – I just don’t think that’s the way to go. I think one of the things that has made this country great is that we don’t let people starve – we strive to protect the poor. This new attitude that it is the “Christian” thing to do to help these people figure it out on their own because a little starvation is better for them…I’m just not buying it.
Jon -
I agree with David Beckmann’s interpretation of that verse more than yours.
Paul Ryan’s plan was slammed by Catholic Bishops in its treatment of the poor.
How have we worked our way into a society where we spend massive amounts more on our military than any other country – and those near us are our allies…and we say that any cuts to that aren’t even on the table – not even up for discussion – but on the other hand, we’re fine cutting services to the vulnerable in this country? Saying “hey 8 year old kid – maybe some tough love will help you not be so dependent”!
Is that what the new Christian nation looks like?
Jon -
One question I would like some thoughts on that you’ve maybe not gotten to yet – my 7:05 post on EMTALA.
What I find disgusting is that we spend so much on the military… And 40% of homeless men are veterans, and we are way more likely to cut VA healthcare than we are military spending.
Ex-GOP, regarding your comment on July 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm:
I would guess, speaking generally, that Americans are not too poor; they are too irresponsible and immoral. They don’t trust in God. I would probably go to Mr. Rick Santorum for an explanation of the origin of American ills.
And, since you mentioned the military, I would go to Mr. Mark Steyn for my opinion, a military that’s leaner and meaner. After all, according to the Bible (Romans 13), the civil government has the power of the sword.
” I would guess, speaking generally, that Americans are not too poor; they are too irresponsible and immoral. They don’t trust in God.”
Ah, I see. So when you get laid off, I hope you remember your words here and chastise yourself for your irresponsible and immoral behavior that obviously led to your hard times.
Seriously, is poor-bashing Christian? Is that seriously what Jesus would do? It’s pretty disgusting.
Jack Borsch, you did note, I hope, that I was speaking generally (and guessing). I happen to live in a country that is (per capita) much poorer but more self-reliant. Self reliance isn’t the same as relying on God, but remarkably trusting in God does lead to greater control of oneself.
Ugh, I am well aware you are speaking in generalities and “guessing”. Doesn’t change the fact that it is a pretty disgusting generalization. I hate this “just world” crap that people come up with, where they have to find some way to justify why someone is in a tight spot so you blame them. Baseless assertions.
Hotair has a relevant new article (11:21 am on July 13). It’s “Obama administration guts work requirements for Clinton-era welfare reform” by Rob Bluey. Here’s how it begins:
The landmark welfare reform law President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 helped move nearly 3 million families off the government dole — the result of federal work requirements that promoted greater self-reliance.
Yesterday the Obama administration gutted those federal work rules, ignoring the will of Congress by issuing a policy directive that allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. “The result is the end of welfare reform,” wrote Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley of The Heritage Foundation.
Jon –
That’s an interesting posting.
Are you intentionally dodging my questions on EMTALA?
EX-GOP asked these questions:
1) Why do you think there’s more waiting time in Canada than the US, and if the US expanded their health care, would be suffer those same waiting times (or do you think Americans could figure out a way to solve that)?
I believe that any government, especially “BIG” burocratic governments are not able to manage health care (and other massive programs) morally and efficiently, even a USA government.
The main reason is the inherent weakness of governments.
What is the main motivation of people getting into a government administration?
Do you think that the majority of politicians (of every party) and administrators are in the governement because they want to serve the people or rather because they are attracted by what I would call the “political currency”: prestige, fame, recognition, wealth, votes, POWER!
So, their main motivations are not based on moral values or real concerns, or (much less) because they see God in every neighbor. Therefore, when they do get the power, they tend to abuse it and mismanage what we the people entrusted to them.
In the end, if all the money in program is gone, it’s not their fault. Obama would say “it’s Bush’s fault” :)
So, if health care in this country would turn to a government-managed program, you can rest assured we would end up in the same mess of all the other government-run health care programs in the world. Money will be overspent and mismanaged. In the end, an elected politician will be there for a few years, then he/she’s gone. Who cares if the program they mismanaged is bankrupt. It’s not their problem! It’s our problem!
2) Is it a benefit to have shorter waits because some people simply can’t afford treatment so they skip it?
As I mentioned before, safety nets are a must in a civil society.
But, it’s not necessary that we give our government the power to control every single aspect in order to have efficient safety nets.
Richard -
I understand your concerns…but I don’t know if I trust insurance companies more or less than the government.
Ex-GOP said ”but I don’t know if I trust insurance companies more or less than the government.”
Well Ex-GOP, at least your health insurance doesn’t control:
taxation, regulation, immigration, police, military, etc. and it’s required to balance its budget!
If we were to entrust only the healthcare safety net part to the US Government, you would find that it would bankrupt and destroy it in 10 years!
Richard -
Thank goodness health insurance doesn’t cover those things – we’d probably have no rural roads at all, and half of the police calls would be held up by paperwork!
Ex-GOP, nothing I can tell you can help you see the risks of a cradle-(if you are not aborted before)-to-grave government, because you don’t believe me.
It sounds impossible or exaggerated. Am I right?
You have to experience it yourself.
If you cannot leave for a long time, go volunteer with your family for one month in Mexico.
I hope you have the experience you’re craving possibly before you vote again for Obama in the next elections.
Richard -
Not sure where I gave you the impression that I think that the government should control all. I simply don’t think the government should be out of everything – there are some things the government is good for. I just don’t go to the militia type extreme that you do.
Ex-GOP, I never promised to talk about EMTALA. I was thinking maybe of answering your questions, but seeing as you’ve brought it up and I know very little about it, I’d have to do more research first.
Richard,
Ex-RINO is not a genuine person. He will call himself a fiscal conservative and yet had no problem with the Democrats never even passing a budget and tell you how he looovves to grow government. He ignores logic and reason and any substance in your posts and regurgitates Democratic talking points. Here is what you are up against. Ex-RINO:
1) admits abortion is murder.
2) Says stopping the murder is his number one goal.
3) Votes for the party that stands shoulder to shoulder with organizations that murder millions of children.
His “reasoning” is that the people he votes for win by more than one vote so he doesn’t feel any responsibility. He is a disingenuous person.
Jon -
Only reason that I throw EMTALA out there is I honestly think that the two go hand in hand – mandate for medical facilities, and mandate for individuals. Take a read of it and then let’s chat.
truthseeker, I had to warn Ex-GOP and people who think like him, so that when those things happen and Obama brings the whole country to the net (just like a school of mindless fish ready to become food), they won’t be able to say “nobody warned me. How I was supposed to know?”
Now, is his sole responsability to form his conscience and vote accordingly.
Amen Richard
It is also about exposing people like Ex-RINO as being the fraud they are. For example Ex-RINO votes to place politicians who support ‘family reduction centers’ (Think Planned Parenthood) in positions of power governing peoples medical lives. We need to shine light and strike people with the truth; that the only mandatory part of Obamnocare “health care” is to promote government funding of the largest abortion provider in the US. And they want to try and force us to pay to place this ‘health care coverage’ upon our daughters. It will be a cold day in hell before I would.
Richard -
I’ve stated multiple times that the government isn’t the answer to everything.
I’m just saying that I’m not going to feel bad if the government is feeding the poor, and I feel that there are certain aspects of health care they should be involved in. You are trying to paint a position that I’m not in.
EGV wrote, in reply to Jon:
Paul Ryan’s plan was slammed by Catholic Bishops in its treatment of the poor.
Half a moment, friend. Some Catholic bishops did, yes; but you might be interested to know that his own bishop (H.E. Robert Morlino) did not, and he publicly supported Rep. Ryan as a good Catholic man who’s well-conversant with Catholic teaching and who heeds such teaching when making his plans. (Links available on request.)
It’s one thing to offer data; it’s another thing to “make hay” out of a broad-brush statement which could mislead readers into thinking that “The Catholic Church is against Paul Ryan and/or his plan” or even “The Catholic hierarchy [without qualifiers] is against Paul Ryan’s plan”.
I might also remind you that the Catholic bishops do not have competence to mandate any particular response to Rep. Ryan’s plan (which does not violate any non-negotiable moral laws–in contrast with Obamacare and the HHS mandate, both of which certainly do)… nor have any bishops done so. Do not go faster or farther than your data empowers you to go.
Paladin -
Good to see you! You had been gone so long I was beginning to worry. Hope all is well with your family and that you are enjoying the crazy hot summer.
I’m quite positive there were Catholics that support Ryan’s plan, just as their have been Catholics that support the separate that has been put in place on the contraception mandate. If I’ve learned anything on Catholics, it is that you can’t really put a label on them and label them as one “block” very often.
I do think though, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is a large enough group to use broad brush statements – but I will be more careful in the future.
So I’ll say it now – the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said the plan “fails to meet” the moral criteria of the Church and that “A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,”
That qualification more fitting?
It might be… if you could supply a reference to the part which specifically says that “the plan” of Rep. Ryan “fails to meet” said criteria. I saw no specific references to any plans (nor did I expect any); did you?
This is above and beyond extraneous problems with the USCCB… but I’ll leave that aside, unless you ask specifically.
You are splitting hairs – the general understood truth is that it is Ryan’s plan.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Catholic-bishops-Ryan-budget/2012/04/17/id/436184
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14247
I don’t know how many articles you want me to post…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/ryan-budget-catholic_n_1434919.html
All right… I’ll concede the point that the USCCB (which I’ll discuss in a moment) has made the criticisms of Rep. Ryan’s plan, as such. (But honestly: “The Huffington Post”?) That being said…
There are three dynamics which characterise the Catholic Church (especially in America) with which you might not be familiar:
1) The USCCB, save for the specific ways that canon law empowers them, has no binding authority on any Catholic; it is a bureaucratic organisation (made up mostly of laity–i.e. non-clergy–who ostensibly seek to represent the US Bishops in this-or-that matter) which can offer advise, but which falls prey to the same sort of “lowest common denominator” disease which infects any pluralistic political group. It is split by “liberal” and “conservative” factions, and its documents usually represent a watered-down compromise of both sides, often to the satisfaction of no one. The only one who has true authority over the Catholics in a given area is the local bishop (who is subject to the Pope, and to any relevant Vatican dicasteries who operate with the Pope’s approval); no conference of Catholic bishops qualifies… so if a bishop “defies” the USCCB (which is a meaningless term, since the USCCB has no jurisdiction not granted it by canon law), canon law sides with the individual bishop.
2) Catholic teaching is, again, not formed by “counting noses”, taking opinion polls, or surveying the current number of Catholic individuals who “are still willing to follow teaching [x]”. I’m not sure you understand that, even now (or whether you honour that fact, as opposed to despising it). Thus, when you cite “numbers of Catholics who disagree and/or refuse to follow thus-and-so Catholic teaching”, you’re citing an irrelevancy, so far as Catholic teaching is concerned.
3) You’re welcome to be impressed with the fact that the USCCB has spoken out on this issue; and I’ll even concede that they have some good points (i.e. I have no personal vested interest in maintaining each and every detail of Rep. Ryan’s plan); but again: do not let this fact lead you too far out on a limb, with regard to implying that “the Catholic Church has spoken on this matter”… which would be nonsense.
Paladin
Certainly never said that the Catholic Church has spoken on this matter.
I appreciate some background though – again, I’m not Catholic nor do I understand all the nuances. My background is much, much different – but again, I appreciate the history on it.
Oh, and the Huffington post was the third google search returned – I just copied down the list – but I certainly would not have put them as my first citation!