ERLC Offers ‘Fifteen Principles for Successful Health Care Reform’

By Staff
Nov 10, 2009

While the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission remains opposed to the health care bills moving through Congress, we strongly support bringing reform to the nation’s health care system. Offering a framework for acceptable reform, the ERLC has outlined “Fifteen Principles for Successful Health Care Reform.” To view those principles, please click here (62 KB PDF).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Healthcare, Legislation,


1 On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:55am, Dan Hite wrote:

Did not HR 3400 (not 3200) speak to these principles? Most of our Reps are deaf and dumb. Political expediency is put way ahead of principle. Thank God for a few good men who understand convictions and principle. May God increase their tribe!  Thank you and your staff, Dr. Land, for your incisive article and courageous stands.

2 On Nov 20, 2009, at 6:21pm, Luther Browning wrote:

I was brought up a Baptist in the 1950’s to early 1960’s. Segregation was promoted in many sermons. In one sermon the preacher said that being black was the mark of Cain. I have not been back. Now I’m a Christian without a Church. Some of my ancestors came to Manhattan Island in 1632 and founded the Baptist Church. You have forgotten the basic premise of what they started. Do not impose your religious beliefs on the government. The Baptists continue to force their beliefs on the government from the pulpit and lobbying efforts. You are antiabortion. Yet God made us so that a considerable percentage of fertilized human eggs are not viable. When they are not expelled, a procedure called by you, abortion, must be performed to save the life of the mother. The potential baby is dead. I believe life begins at birth. You want the government to include your misguided beliefs into the health bill. Look at the history of the Baptist Church too see where you started on the wrong track. Bill

3 On Nov 23, 2009, at 1:56am, Aleene Griswold wrote:

The House and Senate have already voted on the Health
Care Bill and it passed.  Is that all the voting that
is going to be done? Why can’t it be brought to all
the American people for a vote?  We are the ones who
are going to be effected.

4 On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:46pm, Matt wrote:

Hi Aleene,

Slight correction:

The Senate voted Saturday to take the bill to the floor for debate, not for passage of the bill… yet.

It is accurate the House passed their version.

5 On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:05pm, Jonathan Autry wrote:

Richard Land once wrote that John Leland became more involved in politics than any preacher should.  I wonder where he and the ELRC draw the line.  A couple of things, is the ELRC convinced that the health bill is a “single payer” considering they do not mention any other models?  All universal plans are not equal, Jerusalem differs from Berlin, and Berlin differs from Seoul.  I am glad that the ELRC does concede that government does have a need to pay for some people.

6 On Dec 30, 2009, at 9:58am, Abigail wrote:

There are some good principles outlined here.  However, one thing that I do not see addressed enough is the shocking level of involvement that drug companies have in the government.  This creates way too many conflicts of interest for politicians who are supposed to make decisions for the good of the people.  Most people don’t need as many drugs as they’re taking, but they’ve been convinced by drug companies and doctors, who are also tied at the hip to these powerful profiteers, that they need them.  Something needs to be done about that. 
I’m personally completely convinced that natural medicine/homeopathy, etc. is the way to go, but I know that not everyone is ready to accept that.  However, we should all be able to agree that a politician who is paid by a drug company to legislate a certain way is not in the best position to make a decision truly in the interest of his constituents.

The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.

You May Also Like

Soledad cross won’t get high court hearing, yet

By Staff - Jun 25, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered another setback — though not a final one — to the effort to preserve a cross in a southern California veterans memorial.

The justices announced Monday (June 25) they would not review a lower court ruling in the case while they await a final decision by a federal judge on the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego.…

Read More
Partner with the Psalm 139 Project to Save Lives How Your Congressman Voted on Health Care Reform Bill