The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission | SCHIP Reauthorization Compromise Has Its Flaws | Comments http://erlc.com/ This feed provides all comments on "SCHIP Reauthorization Compromise Has Its Flaws." en web-master@erlc.com ℗ & © 2008 ERLC Comment 1 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment1 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment1 My wife and I were grateful for the CHIP program while we were poor seminary students.  It was a blessing and the care provided was excellent.  It is a mistake to say all socialized health care will be like that of Great Britian.  Just because on form of socialized medicine was unpleasant in the 70’s does not mean an American version 30 years later would have the same problems.

Having spent time in France while in college (1999) i was impressed with their health care system.  I believe it is a shame that the richest country in the world cannot provide affordable health care for all of it’s citizens.

I would love to have Dr. land come down and preach at my tiny country church and explain to these poor people why Jesus does not want them to have health insurance.

]]> Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:15:37 CST Comment 2 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment2 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment2 Russell,

I believe that you missed the point of what Dr. Land was saying. According to the article, the ERLC supports the continuation of the SCHIP program in its original form, which provides health coverage to just the “poor” people you referred to in your comment.  What the ERLC is opposed to is extending the SCHIP to families who make $60k or even $80k per year; such families CAN provide health coverage for their children, they just choose not to. Providing the same coverage for them would lessen the program’s ability to cover those who really need it. So Dr. Land is really on your tiny country church’s side.

And I don’t see where you get off saying that Jesus doesn’t want poor people to have health insurance. This has nothing to do with Jesus and is actually aimed a poor people.

]]> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:59:28 CST Comment 3 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment3 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment3 Please understand that many people, myself included consider ERLC to speak for Southern Baptist’s based on what scripture says.  Nowhere in scripture do I see Jesus preaching against helping the poor or sick.  When Dr. Land says that this program is flawed because it helps too many people I expect that he has a scriptural basis for this assessment. For someone to post on the ERLC website that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus concerns me.  If it has nothing to do with Jesus we should not be commenting, but I am under the conviction that everything has to do with Jesus and as Christ’s body we are to reflect his glory, love and mercy into every decision.

Having never made $60k a year I would not know what someone in that salary range could afford.  I make $33k a year and my church provides a parsonage as well as pays for my insurance.  I am grateful for this!  I have no debt but if my church did not cover these things for us we would be unable to have insurance.

]]> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:54:08 CST Comment 4 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment4 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment4 Furthermore I believe in Baptist polity and the ability we have to disagree with dignity, honor and love.  Rereading my first post there was a tone that was very unchristian.  I apologize to Dr. Land and any who read that post and wish that I had not started a worthy discussion with any spirit that was not of God.

]]> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:07:32 CST Comment 5 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment5 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment5 Hi Russell,

Thank you very much for amending the comment about Dr. Land in your first post. 

I agree that, as you mentioned, there is the ability (and plenty of room) here for discussion, debate (even spirited in tone), and disagreement on many issues (within Baptist polity and the nation at large). 

I must admit I was rather appalled by the last paragraph of your first post, for the very reason you’ve apologized. I believe it took away from otherwise worthwhile points you made about this issue.  It was also a gross mischaracterization of Dr. Land’s position on the issue, particularly considering he is on record as having echoed your very concern:

“With this country’s economic prosperity, we can and should find ways to provide health care for everyone.” -Richard Land (April 29, 2006)

It seems to me the disagreement (if there is indeed disagreement) lies in the policy, not in the philosophy, intent, or spirit.

All that to say, I’m am more than impressed that you posted an apology.  It is a rare occurrence, both ‘online’ and offline, and you are to be commended for doing so. Thank you again for your effort to keep the tone of this discussion appropriate and on point.

(Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure: Matt is on staff at ERLC.)

]]> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:31:29 CST Comment 6 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment6 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment6 Thank you very much for your comments on my statement in my first post: that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus.  I did not intend to cause divisions, and realize that my last statement was not made in the spirit of Christ; thus I apologize for the way it was worded. The intended meaning was not literally that this issue has nothing to do with Jesus in particular, because as a Christian everything should be seen through the lens of Christ.

Unfortunately, (and the intention of my statement) this issue is one that is not addressed by scripture: providing health insurance coverage for everyone, regardless of their financial straits.  Scripture and Christ both call us to care for and support the poor and helpless, but is it a Christian’s responsibility to provide the same financial help to those who do not need it, such as families making $80k per year? That is something that we cannot definitively speak for Christ on; it is vague and open to debate. (Continued below)

]]> Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:02:02 CST Comment 7 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment7 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment7 (Continued from previous post) As a Baptist, I believe we should be fiscally responsible and provide help where it is needed most--if we extend this “help” to $80k income families, why not extend it to $150k, or $500k? Where do you draw the line? My wife and I make about $30k per year and we have our own health insurance coverage.  It would be great if we could get out from under it by qualifying for free insurance. Thanks for your genteel debate on this, as it is important to all of us!

]]> Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:44:07 CST Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:41:48 CST Comment 8 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment8 http://erlc.com/article/schip-reauthorization-compromise-has-its-flaws#comment8 My concern with any government program like SCHIP is that it fails to recognize personal responsibility. The Bible has much to say about responsibility. Some of that has to do with taking care of the poor and some has to do with husbands taking care of their families. I hope that a balance can be found, which will address both issues.

]]> Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:41:48 CST