[HM2Viking]

I was recently reading Mountains beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder. Dr. Paul Farmer references the following passage to explain his commitment to providing health care for the poor.




See Matthew 25.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...tthew+25:31-46 accessed today.

From an ethical standpoint I take this as meaning that we have an affirmative obligation to help raise the least of us in society out of poverty.

[mellonball]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

The truth is the truth, even if it is a hard truth. People make choices and poverty is such a choice.

For the record, I am an awesome bedside nurse. My house is NOT made out of glass; it is well protected against poverty because of a long career of hard, full time employment.

The Bible IS clear on this: don't work; don't eat.

The belief in hard work and marriage as a vehicle to raise children are both strong Christian values. I stand by them.

Now, the Bible also has lots to say about charity. That is a different topic, altogether. Gov't aid, however, isn't charity. It is an entitlement, not a gift and that makes all the difference. I believe in charity. I do not believe in entitlements.

For the record, SCHIP was REPUBLICAN sponsored legislation when it was passed in 1997. It will be again, when President Bush signs it. He WILL sign it, when Democrats are forced to readdress their perversion of the original legislation and remove the encroachment into socialized medicine from it in order to restore it to what it was designed to do: help kids in the gap between Medicaid and affordable insurance.

And you don't have to yell.

~faith,
Timothy.

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. I AM NOT YELLING. I LEAVE THE CAP ITAL LOCK ON SINCE I AM WORKING AND THE PROGRAM I AM USING WILL NOT RESPOND TO LOWER CASE. I AM ACTUALLY WRITING WITH MY INSIDE VOICE. YOU DO NOT SEE ANY EXCLAMATION POINTS DO YOU?

[mellonball]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I was recently reading Mountains beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder. Dr. Paul Farmer references the following passage to explain his commitment to providing health care for the poor.



31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...tthew+25:31-46 accessed today.

From an ethical standpoint I take this as meaning that we have an affirmative obligation to help raise the least of us in society out of poverty.

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP THE MOST GET IT THE LEAST AND NOT FOR LACK OF TRYING. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HEAR POVERTY AND THINK DIRT POOR. POVERTY COULD BE WORKING FULL TIME AND NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF LIFE. THE OTHER ISSUE COULD JUST BE ABOUT PAYING FOR THE THINGS THAT INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER AND HOW THAT CAN MAKE A SITUATION GO FROM BAD TO WORSE AND PEOPLE SHOULD NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND RELIGION AND PLACE BLAME ON PEOPLE BEING POOR AND CALLING THEM LAZY. I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ACTUALLY BE POOR. I COME FROM WHAT IS CONSIDERED MIDDLE CLASS AND I SEE THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE AND KNWO IT MUST BE HELL FOR THE HAVE NOTS OR THE HAVE NOT TOO MUCH

[HM2Viking]

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by mellonball

ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP THE MOST GET IT THE LEAST AND NOT FOR LACK OF TRYING. THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HEAR POVERTY AND THINK DIRT POOR. POVERTY COULD BE WORKING FULL TIME AND NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF LIFE. THE OTHER ISSUE COULD JUST BE ABOUT PAYING FOR THE THINGS THAT INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER AND HOW THAT CAN MAKE A SITUATION GO FROM BAD TO WORSE AND PEOPLE SHOULD NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND RELIGION AND PLACE BLAME ON PEOPLE BEING POOR AND CALLING THEM LAZY. I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ACTUALLY BE POOR. I COME FROM WHAT IS CONSIDERED MIDDLE CLASS AND I SEE THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE AND KNWO IT MUST BE HELL FOR THE HAVE NOTS OR THE HAVE NOT TOO MUCH

I agree with you. I am actually on your side on this issue. I posted the link to Matthew 25 as an explanation of my belief about why we have an obligation as a society and as individuals to help the poor.

As the OP of this thread I want to remind everyone that the central point was that as a society we can spend money better and smarter to improve the health of our patients.

[SmilingBluEyes]

Thread temporarily locked for moderator discussion. Thank you!

[SmilingBluEyes]

PS:
typing in all capital letters on the www. is considered "shouting" and poor net etiquette and this site is no different. It does not make your point any more clear or emphasize it anymore, but rather can distract.

Please take note. Thanks.

[SmilingBluEyes]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

.[/b]

As the OP of this thread I want to remind everyone that the central point was that as a society we can spend money better and smarter to improve the health of our patients.

Thread re-opened for now.

The above quote from the OP says it well. Please, can we keep race out of this and refrain from attacking each other. If not, the thread will be locked permanently. Thanks.

[cmo421]

It was mentioned in a previous post that all a family had to do to reach middle classes was have both adults work full time. Do u not read the papers? Depending on where u live ,many adults are considered the working poor. Two incomes does not guarentee finacial solvency. It does nothing but make some famililies ineligable for the minimum of help. I still think it goes back to education and a reasonable kick start in life. "There but for the grace of God go I"

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by cmo421

It was mentioned in a previous post that all a family had to do to reach middle classes was have both adults work full time. Do u not read the papers? Depending on where u live ,many adults are considered the working poor. Two incomes does not guarentee finacial solvency. It does nothing but make some famililies ineligable for the minimum of help. I still think it goes back to education and a reasonable kick start in life. "There but for the grace of God go I"

Both of my parents worked when I was growing up. We were lower middle class, what you refer to as 'working poor'. There were 5 of us kids. We didn't have lots of stuff. We certainly didn't have cable television. I can remember it being a BIG deal when we got a VCR, years after others did. We had one car for a family of 7 - I can remember riding on laps in the back seat.

We weren't poor.

There is this sliding definition of poverty. Poverty is NOT "can't afford a cable modem, or a 2nd car." It isn't.

Two incomes don't guarantee financial solvency if you are millionaires. The reason why is because two incomes don't ensure sound financial management. Two incomes, in almost every case, DOES provide enough for the big 4: food, housing, clothing, transportation. It might not provide enough for steak every night, or a LEXUS, or a trip to the mall for clothes twice a month, but you can't tell me that two full time incomes don't equal escaping poverty. In fact, you don't suggest that, you just wrap it up in a cute euphamism: working poor. That's an oxymoron.

When the government breaks down income, by household, this is what it consistently finds:

Lowest 20% - 1 wage earner per household, part time.

Next lowest 20% - 1 wage earner per household, full time.

Middle 20% - 2 wage earners per household

2nd highest 20% - 2 wage earners per household

Highest 20% - a mix between 1 and 2 wage earners, per household.

2 full time incomes is enough to place the average household in the middle to upper range of income salaries.

In fact, since I haven't read these papers that cite them all the time, point to me 1 example of 2 FULL TIME incomes equating to poverty.

Proverbs 10: 3-5
"The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry but thwarts the cravings of the wicked. Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. He who gathers crops in the summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son."


~faith,
Timothy.