Very rarely do I discuss anything political on this blog, but today I will make an exception, based on the cultural impact our next president seems to be having. First of all--and let me just throw this out there--I don't really care what kind of dog his family gets. Not even a little.
Moving on, it has actually surprised me a good deal to see the amount of hope that is being attached to the man. The news media seem to think that tomorrow's festivities will not only be inaugurating a new presidential term, but the very millennial kingdom mentioned in Revelation. In fact, one might think that he is Christ returned. Change is coming! All of our problems will be--no, have been--solved!
I have nothing against Mr. Obama, mind you. I didn't vote for him, but he won, fair and square. I hope he does a great job. All I am suggesting is that he is just a man. Does his election warrant hope and optimism for Americans, especially black Americans? You bet. If I were black, I would be extremely proud, and he would undoubtedly work that much harder to achieve my own dreams. This may well be Obama's lasting legacy, and a good one, at that. Does his win mean that everything bad and evil in America will disappear overnight? No. Does this mean that all of the sudden the people in this world who hate America will become our allies? Not a chance. And nationalized health care? Don't even get me started on how bad of an idea that is. Will life continue, much as it always has, regardless of who's in the White House? Yep.
I would urge caution, therefore, in ascribing too much to any man, even a president. Why not instead place your hope in Christ and Christ alone? After all, he is the only person who defeated death. He is the mediator between God and man. He is the eternal judge and the one who gave his very life for you.
Wish Mr. Obama well, hope that he is a good president, but let's face reality--true hope can only be found in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Nationalized Health Care a bad idea? Yes, with our nation being one of the only industrialized nations without cradle to grave care, our exploding budget crisis with medicare, the millions uninsured or under insured, I don't see how a vastly new direction isn't warranted.
The idea that Christ is our only source of hope invalidates the idea that the Spirit works through people. The Bible is replete with examples of leaders who changed the circumstances of others. Jesus may be the source of our salvation but he chooses not to enter the oval office and sign bills into law.
There have been many presidents who have dramatically changed the course of this country for the better and worse. Just because he is not God does not mean that we cannot hope that he will help us as Moses, Joshua, David, Paul, Peter did. Will he solve all the problems? No of course not, but he will bring a shift away from the dramatically skewed policies of the last 8 years (e.g. torture of prisoners, preemptive attacks on sovereign nations, over-deregulation of private industries, tax breaks for the wealthy (only), etc.).
While Christ remains on high, I will put my hope in those He chooses to work through here on Earth.
Just remember, when we have nationalized health care, the same people who run the DMV will be in charge of your health care. I say "no thanks" to that idea.
Thanks for posting!
Yes but the same people who run the DMV are the same people who answer my phone calls at the insurance billing center. People put in boring mediocre jobs will act mediocre.
In heaven everyone will be have a good paying job that makes them happy.
Kurt Vonnegut
I would honestly like to hear your objections to NHC, perhaps in another post or when you get the time. We are both busy typing while changing diapers :).
The reason for my disdain of nationalized health care is twofold:
1)The federal gov't has not been given the power to do this in the US Constitution or its amendments.
2)The federal gov't has no competition. They will have no pressing need to be efficient or to do a good job with health care, because there will be nowhere else to go for it. You'll get the service they provide, so hopefully you'll like it. Given 1) above, however, this is really a moot point.
I hope this explains my position clearly.
1)The federal gov't has not been given the power to do this in the US Constitution or its amendments.
Yes but it never knew anything about the Internet nor the American stock market but these are both industries that need some regulation. I believe in a federal policy which is implemented according to the state's needs and laws which is aligned with the constitution's intent.
2)The federal gov't has no competition. They will have no pressing need to be efficient or to do a good job with health care, because there will be nowhere else to go for it. You'll get the service they provide, so hopefully you'll like it. Given 1) above, however, this is really a moot point.
Monopoly (government) or oligarchy (current) take your pick. Unlike a private corporation, the government is answerable to the people and does not have shareholders which makes it not-for-profit. There are many countries in the world who utilize the NHC system and do not complain about it's service. However, there is much negative propaganda spoken against NHC by those who would stand to lose billions.
I suppose that is where we differ, then. I would prefer free-market forces to work rather than have government oversight except those specifically called out in the Constitution, which is what I believe the founding fathers intended.
You don't have free market forces when companies fail and the government bails them out. A deep look into our nation's health care system will reveal how much collusion and corruption prevails.
Without any oversight, you WILL have the situation where people are trapped with bad service. The constitution is a living document much like the Bible. What is adiaphora or unspoken of in the Bible is left to the community to decide according to the sprit. What is adiaphora in the constitution is left to the states.
However, I feel that many of the safeguards put in place over the years have been removed which have caused at least in part our current situation.
There can be no free market if you are not willing for companies to fail and people to lose their jobs. Additionally, the market often trends towards a balance of quality service and price. I would rather not settle for ok service (and judging by your earlier comments you don't either) and the free market has never shown itself to perform outside of government intervention/watch.
If I read you correctly, it seems that we agree a balanced approach is best, even if we differ on how that can be acheived.
Post a Comment