Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (58)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (40)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Public health care is a Christian option
Saturday, November 21, 2009 5:54 AM PST
Jesus was a healer. He brought healing to the poor and rich alike. He has shown us that health and healing are at the center of Christian care for our fellow human beings.
Dr. Anna Marie Vigen is an assistant professor of ethics at Loyola University in Chicago. She writes in the Washington Post: "I understand why Christians of good faith find themselves on both sides of abortion debates, but health care reform? That should be a no-brainer. If we are a people shaped by our respect for life and the dignity of the human person, how can we not be at the front lines of health care reform? Even more, why do many of us oppose a public option for health care?"
Jesus directed his disciples to "cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons" (Matt.10:7). This is in addition to the multiple times that the gospels record the healing acts of Jesus.
We now have a historic opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the health and healing vision of Jesus by supporting health care reform, including a public option. Clearly, the bill will not be perfect, shaped as it is by so many competing interests and coalitions. It can, however, survive in a form that will benefit the people of this nation as we seek to act in ways that create the greatest good for the greatest number.
Christians are not the only people who support a public option in health care reform. They join people of other religious traditions in compassionate care for their fellow citizens, as do people of no religious commitments.
Christian support for such national policy is rooted in their commitment to Jesus and his practice of healing the sick. (Dr. Vigens' entire article can be seen at www.tinyurl.com/matbq3.)
Robert W. Mattheis
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Rhodie wrote on Nov 25, 2009 11:00 AM:
I have no desire to see China (Poland, Italy and Australia yes, but not China). But I still think it is a worthy question in today's society. Why are there laws against selling your own organs to those who need them? There is high demand and limited supply. Current medical techniques limit the risks.
Let's put this another way, do you think a person dying of a kidney ailment would rather have a Kidney from someone willing to sell it (to insurance, individual or hospital organ exchange system) or from some stranger who had to die for them to live? I've heard some organ transplant recipients suffer from survivor's guilt because people had to die for them to live. "
SportsGuru wrote on Nov 25, 2009 9:30 AM:
Rhoadie...
Fly to China. They would be more than happy to exchange a few thousand worthless US Dollars for your Kidney, and you'd see the GREAT WALL to boot! "
rantraves wrote on Nov 25, 2009 8:37 AM:
jonsey wrote on Nov 25, 2009 8:29 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Nov 24, 2009 5:31 PM:
Here is one area I would like to see change. Specifically the possiblity of selling organs. For example, I am in good health, don't drink or smoke. Shouldn't I be able to sell a kidney since there is such a high demand? Not only would this create a larger supply of organs for those that need them but would also be a one or two time (not sure how many organs you can do without or without all of) financial boost to people who may need it before the home is forclosed on. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 24, 2009 4:36 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 24, 2009 3:10 PM:
And heck yeah, I bet Jesus scarfed tacos because, verily, they are awesome. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:50 PM:
I wonder if Jesus liked tacos...I bet he did. Tacos are pretty awesome. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:43 PM:
But the letter writer seems to think Obamacare is what jesus would do?
Maybe its in the bible somewhere.... "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:23 PM:
If you want to make money, print "Jesus HATES Obamacare" shirts.
Those would be an instant hit among the conservatives; the churches would be packed with people wearing them. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 11:26 AM:
"Jesus Hearts Obamacare" shirts.
I'll be rich I tell you, rich!! "
SportsGuru wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:59 AM:
In the bible passages I have read (and that is MANY), I never saw any reference to Jesus having a Mortgage to pay ..... "
SportsGuru wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:58 AM:
So, Robert ... are you proposing that Doctors and Healthcare professionals donate their Mercedes and BMW's to Charity, don robes, and wander the countryside curing the sick like Jesus did?
This is the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY. Things work a little differently in this day and age.
That's what we have been trying to tell the "5th Century" Muslims that want to destroy western civilization. Pre dark ages mentality doesn't apply these days. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:42 AM:
dyan wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:33 AM:
dyan wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:29 AM:
dyan wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:07 AM:
dyan wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:02 AM:
Ivan Dixon wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:11 PM:
tosh conn wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:28 PM:
Veritas wrote on Nov 22, 2009 7:23 PM:
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:58 PM:
In contrast my insurance right now covers this kind of surgery. It is so nice to know that the government cares so much about my health that they would tax me to make sure my long term health in assured. "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:41 PM:
It's nothing more than a shell game. Pelosi knows that when they merge the senate bill with her bill, that stupak language will be dropped. It has a very real chance of being in the final bill.
Uncertainties such as this one and far many others with this healthcare reform are why many, many people are concerned, and why it's support is dropping as time goes by. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:30 PM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:28 PM:
Many, many Americans are personally against abortion first of all, yet the government is trying to force those people to pay for other people to have what they are morally opposed to.
This issue has come up before in terms of Quakers and other people who believed that their religion prohibited them from paying taxes that would go to fund war making.
I believe many of them were prosecuted for their failure to render unto Caesar. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:26 PM:
In the intervening months and years, have you purchased health insurance for your children, as I urged you to do? "
sparky595 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:09 PM:
Many, many Americans are personally against abortion first of all, yet the government is trying to force those people to pay for other people to have what they are morally opposed to. Take a second and think about that. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:56 PM:
sparky595 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:51 PM:
'Even more, why do many of us oppose a public option for health care?'
Because it is the first step ( of which there is no turning back ) towards a single payer government run healthcare system. That will solidify our transformation to socialism.
So to answer the question.... If you are for single payer and socialism, you are for the public option. If you are for private enterprise and capitalism, you are against it. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:50 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:14 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:10 PM:
As for your post at 1:57 PM: Five years?!? Are you kidding? You'll defend anything and everything these people place in front of you, right? Or is it just to spite those who have the tenacity (and common sense) to question the validity of what they're trying to do to us? Either way, I cannot imagine you're thinking straight.
As for your post at 12:56 PM: There's no comparison. Police and fire protection are paid by local taxes. They are provided to protect the entire community based upon safety issues. We can't each have our own fire truck; but we can (and should) have our own healthcare provisions in place (if we are so able).
However, if someone deliberately sets fire to their own home or if they are so negligent to the point of putting others in harm's way, then yes they should be held accountable. If their homeowner's insurance covers those instances, then fine. Otherwise, they should be either prosecuted or sued for restitution. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:09 PM:
I offer you an example of someone (Voter) who can't possibly understand how anyone can live without the government mandating every important desicion must be made by the government. "
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:05 PM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:03 PM:
America already has the best healthcare infrastructure in the world. There's no need to reinvent the wheel as Obama is implying with his transformation. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 2:00 PM:
But ONCE AGAIN people need to take responsibility for themselves and their families. You seem to suggest that adult family members (as Brian's wife is included in your question) are completely unable to either think for themselves or make decisions regarding their own lots in life or to go after their own pursuits of happiness. I find that hard to believe, especially in these enlightened times.
You also seem to question my assertion that some catastrophic policies are relatively inexpensive. Well, actually they are. Yes, they come with higher deductibles as the cost goes down. But since many procedures can cost upwards of many, many thousands of dollars, $60.00 per month shouldn't be too big a burden to bear. After all, we're talking about health insurance.
Or is the new Escalade more important? "
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:57 PM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:54 PM:
I'm gonna out on replying to voter's last implications since they really resonate to the point where one could conclude she is crossing the line of what is sane.
On a somewhat lighter note:
I hear they have a movie coming out on Obama soon. It's aptly called "The Bi-Polar Express". :) "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:49 PM:
When the Republicans gain control of the house in 2010
they will have more pull at making sweeping changes in the bill. That being said,
I'm hopeful the Democrats will come to their senses and realize just how flawed their bill was. "
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:48 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:36 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:31 PM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:21 PM:
" It's interesting that the two here (Brian and Jerome) that have been assisted by the government when they've had health needs are the two most vocal against the government getting involved in healthcare that would help others. "
-It's interesting that Lodian doesn't
realize that regardless of whether Jerome & I and millions of others who
have used government care still wouldn't support Obamacare because of the overwhelming facts that it will
not work. But she still insists on presenting her weak argument
even now that it is coming to pass that the overwhelming majority of those polled (liberal and conservative) have had enough of Obama's so-called promises
that are becoming ever more hollow. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:21 PM:
Since becoming adults and gotten older, did any one of us actually believe we would never get sick; that we might never be injured; that we would never get cancer; that we would never die in spite of whatever plans we might have put into place?
Obviously there are those who must have thought themselves invincible because apparently they've made no preparations for what was absolutely inevitable.
How wise was that? Yet now they're expecting the government to save them? Amazing! "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:10 PM:
I upheld my end of the bargain; they've responded in kind, just as I would have expected them to do. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:10 PM:
" Jerome, your assertion that no one is denied healthcare, and one need only show up at an emergency room to have their needs met is ridiculous--and you know it. Cancer patients can not get chemotherapy at an emergency room. The list of lifesaving care not provided by emergency rooms is very, very long.
-Hmm,
You are almost suggesting that we close down the emergency rooms because they can't possibly provide for every ill.
Puts a little damper on where we transport all of the accident victims.
Should we also close down all of the hospitals that don't specialize in rare diseases? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:06 PM:
But here's the thing, if you don't agree with me, you should realize that absent a truly transformative idea from you or anyone else, my mind is kind of made up. When one understands the comparison that I made between healthcare and automobile insurance, logic takes the fore rather than emotion.
A relatively cheap catastrophic insurance policy would provide for your example (chemotherapy), but here's the thing – it has to be in place prior to the event for which it is required. That means we should think ahead to what could happen rather than expect others to pay once these things occur and we haven't done our work beforehand. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 1:05 PM:
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:56 PM:
Let's compare healthcare to fire and police protection. Do you think the fire department should only show up to households where insurance policies will reimburse them? "
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:50 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:43 PM:
Unlike some, I do respect others for whatever choices they make when it comes to something as personal and serious as their faith. This is one reason I resist discussing such matters especially on this forum. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:29 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:27 PM:
Do I see another bill on the horizon that would provide for the government to pick up that difference? Or better yet, do we make driving in California a right (as opposed to the privilege which it is now) therefore eliminating the need for any insurance whatsoever? Would that be better?
Or, how about the doctor sending the $5,000 bill to the guy responsible and actually expect him to pay? And if he doesn't, the doctor would have the right to file suit against the guy. Too harsh? Unfair? Un-American?
Clearly, the answer is people need to ensure that they are simply taking care of business. Why wouldn't we apply this same standard to our healthcare responsibilities? It absolutely defies logic. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:16 PM:
I can't believe the 180 degree turnaround Jerome is making today! "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:16 PM:
But all these things are not a "right". And to take it a step further, IF Obamacare passes then healthcae would still not be a right, it would be a requirement. Under Obamacare healthcare would be as much a right as paying taxes is a right. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:14 PM:
I'm glad to see you have changed your mind and now back a public option for the needy. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:13 PM:
But since I have no idea where you stand regarding Christianity, I will follow what I believe Christ would do and refrain from judgment but pray that your heart becomes just a bit more accessible to Him. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:11 PM:
What I'm getting from Jerome's stilted explanation of his position is that he thinks Brian had no right to free health care.
Would you turn Brian away, Jerome?
If so, Brian, did you know that?
If not, then who would you turn away, Jerome? The non-Christians? Would they have to see a "Disciple" before you would allow them to be healed? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 12:07 PM:
For those who have done the things necessary to secure insurance or saved enough money to pay their own way and do it voluntarily, leave them alone. For those who have the ability to take care of themselves yet refuse, no, they shouldn't be refused care, but when they receive the bill they should be fully expected to pay. For those who truly lack the ability, then yes there should be relief for them. I have never altered from this course.
But to put the entire burden on the people is preposterous. As with food, housing, auto insurance and all of the things that we want and need in our personal pursuits of happiness; we get out of life just as we've put in. That is the American dream; not a government that does all the providing leaving a population with no self-respect or ambition to improve and provide for themselves and their families.
Once again, it comes down to taking responsibility for ourselves; not redistributing from those who have done well to those who have refused. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:57 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:53 AM:
" I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone be turned away from receiving care. The question was (and is) is it a "right" and who should pay for it?
You are dodging the question. If health care is not a right, why aren't you arguing that it should be denied to those who can't pay?
If I can't afford a car, I can't show up to an Emergency Transportation Room and get one on the government dime. If I can't afford a TV, I can't show up to an Emergency Entertainment Room and get one on the government dime. If there is no right to medical care, why should it be different if my arm is severed in a car accident and I don't have any money to pay a doctor?
Your claim that there is no right to health care is in fundamental conflict with your apparent belief that no one in serious need should be turned away from an ER.
Please explain. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:47 AM:
As is so often the case, I find that the Christ of the conservatives has very little to do with the Christ of the Bible. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:47 AM:
Today it is not, but there are those who believe it should be a right - that would leave the entire cost to the government (The People). I disagree. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the third element encompasses all those things that we should do to enjoy a happy, healthy and as long a life as possible.
The government is not our parents, but it sure wants to be. The restrictions that will be placed upon us as we continue down that path will soon find us unable to achieve that third element - because they're whittling away at the second and the result will be the government that will determine what is best in that pursuit. It's happening now – and it must be stopped. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:29 AM:
It seems to me you've got an axe to grind with Jesus in the event he returns
and he is asked to be honest about how he feels about Obamacare.
If I didn't know Brian, I would think that this just had to be satire. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 11:27 AM:
Emergency rooms, by law have been designated as places where those who enter cannot be turned away. This is kind of like the ludicrous "don't ask; don't tell" rule in the military.
So, you believe that the law should be changed so that ERs can turn away injured and sick people who cannot pay? "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:43 AM:
Another number for you: 50 percent of the new doctors are women. And of that 50 percent, a good majority aren't becoming primary care physicians. One theory is: women don't want to be woken up in the middle of the night so they become physicians who are less likely to have this occur.
In a time where we desperately need primary care physicans to fill the void
you'd think these women would have some common sense. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:31 AM:
How many die who simply didn't take responsibility for themselves to secure insurance while having the means to do so? How many others were simply unable to find their way to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay and could have been saved? Finally, the destitute or those simply unable to provide for themselves; how many of them died because a medical facility outright refused to treat them? And where is the empirical data to support whatever number that might be?
Numbers are funny things, aren't they? Did Al Gore do the analysis? "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:23 AM:
coming into the industry.
I think the Dick Morris column touched on it in so many words. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:18 AM:
Contents of the bill will be available to read at least 72 hours prior to vote. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:16 AM:
THE 20 BIG LIES IN THE HEALTHCARE REFORM DEBATE
You can keep your insurance if you like it.
You can keep your doctor if you wish.
US healthcare ranks near the bottom of the industrialized world.
Major cause of bankruptcies is related to medical expenses.
14,000 people per day are dying due to lack of medical insurance.
Most doctors support Obamacare as endorsed by organized medicine (AMA).
Senior citizens will not lose any Medicare benefits.
Insurance premiums will be reduced for most Americans.
This plan will only result in tax increases for the super wealthy.
Proposed HC bills are budget "neutral" and will not add to the federal deficit.
There are only 2 choices: the current system or Obamacare.
The Republicans say NO because they lack and alternative plan.
The public "strongly" supports Obamacare and public option.
There will not be any rationing in healthcare.
The government will not interfere between you and your doctor.
Most doctors oppose HCR legislation so they can preserve their income.
This is a "crisis" situation and needs to be passed into law immediately.
A public option will increase competition and not result in a single payer system. cont. " "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:09 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:07 AM:
How can you conclude that Jesus would not disagree with certain elements of Obamacare He finds inadequate? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:07 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:06 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 10:00 AM:
Did you see the list I posted on another blogg of the 20 lies of Obamacare? "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:56 AM:
As usual, a good explanation. Indeed, healthcare is not a right. Obama is doing everything he can to make it a right no matter how much it damages our economy. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:55 AM:
For something this massive, in order for it to be a right, it should be enumerated in the Constitution. And I'm all for giving that a shot. Amend the Constitution. As I said earlier, at least then the American people might be heard on the matter rather than being left up to a bunch of politicians who obviously have no respect for their constituents.
Landrieu, through her histrionics over the past few days may have enjoyed her 15 minutes, but come next November she may very well be looking for work within the Obama administration. And maybe that's precisely what she wants; so good for her. Likewise for Blanche Lincoln who faces her voters next November as well. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:44 AM:
Emergency rooms, by law have been designated as places where those who enter cannot be turned away. This is kind of like the ludicrous "don't ask; don't tell" rule in the military. The UCMJ still dictates that homosexual behavior is against military law, but as long as no one knows about it going on, those so engaged get a pass. In emergency rooms, folks will receive care regardless of their ability to pay for it at the time. This is not the case when they walk into a doctor's office or other non-emergency facility. Usually there it's pay first, care later.
Both ideas were created to placate both sides of these issues by politicians lacking the will to actually settle them, i.e., political cowardice. Both are wrong. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:39 AM:
Voter may find herself in a position
wher she may have to disagree with Jesus. Her loyalty to Obama's agenda trumps everything else. "
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:34 AM:
Interesting that you can conclude that Jesus would not point out the inadequacies of Obamacare and just go along with the ride.
It seems to me you've got an axe to grind with Jesus in the event he returns
and he is asked to be honest about how he feels about Obamacare. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:31 AM:
Brian wrote on Nov 22, 2009 9:27 AM:
And there's a long list of people who are opposed to Obamacare that would agree with Rant's assessment of Obamacare as "sleeping with the Devil".
It's not as if Obamacare doesn't have good intentions. The Devil does have a track record of deceiving people into thinking
that his intentions are always good. "
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:17 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 22, 2009 8:07 AM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 22, 2009 6:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 22, 2009 5:57 AM:
" Voter, anyone who shows up at an emergency room must receive care. I've heard there's a law concerning that very thing. Yet I sense that you are of the mindset that believes healthcare should be designated as a "right
If health care isn't a right, why on Earth should anyone who shows up at a emergency room be given treatment? If you don't think health care is a right, shouldn't you be devoting your efforts, at least in part, to repealing any law that guarantees ER treatment?
Come on, Jerry, all we are asking you for is a little consistency here. "
tosh conn wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:19 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 8:55 PM:
However, I believe the powers that be are trying as hard as they can to avoid such a move because they know to a virtual certainty that it would never pass.
In any event, if a consolidated bill from both Houses includes a government option and/or payment for abortions, which I suspect it will, it will most certainly be immediately challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. In that case, I'm sure the president (and others) will be praying for one of the more conservative justices to require replacing between now and then.
This is far from settled. "
voter wrote on Nov 21, 2009 8:16 PM:
"But since you brought it up, no one is denying anyone basic healthcare."
This is a lie, Jerome, and you know it. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:44 PM:
We're in debt way beyond our eyebrows and here we have a bunch of people telling us that this "reform" is "deficit neutral." Anyone with an ounce of gray matter must sense something wrong with this silly notion.
Still, before being distracted by someone who only wanted to raise a stink with me I was focused more on the author's avoidance of the abortion issue rather than his misdirected correlation between Jesus and these bills. "
voter wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:24 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 7:14 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 6:35 PM:
Aren't you inappropriately depending on those physicians who are "incapable" of curing you or anyone else? Won't Jesus resent your lack of faith by your less-than-100% dependence on His work? If He said He would, He will, right?
In the inevitable event the doctors fail (they must fail - they are, you said repeatedly, "incapable" of healing the sick), do you anticipate your personal "Disciple" will successfully "raise" you, as he is surely enabled to do? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 6:01 PM:
Clearly, the Disciples were "enabled" by Christ to do what other men were/are incapable of doing. My own experience with disease has never been resolved by the mere laying of hands upon me, but rather by gifted physicians who required myriad techniques and equipment in their "attempts" to heal me. While I am truly thankful for all that they have done and continue to do on my behalf, my ultimate gratification is to God Himself for whatever healing I've received. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 5:48 PM:
Everyone sees that you are acting perfectly Christ-like in shunning those with whom you disagree. Most admirable. You can continue to talk past me and pretend you are exasperatedly speaking to a sympathetic third party while you complain about my questions.
Pretend you are talking past Billy Rubin (just like Jesus would) to one of your worthwhile blogging friends (imagine you're talking with Sarah Palin) and explain your convictions that doctors are all "incapable" of healing anyone and only "Disciples" of Jesus have been so "enabled".
Now is your chance to show Jesus what you're made of. I bet He's just sitting on His hands waiting to hear this. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 5:22 PM:
And since I do not want to be in violation of the Comment Rules, I will continue to refrain responding directly to you. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 4:55 PM:
Insurance premiums would instantly drop to zero because all medical treatments would be flawlessly performed by magic; there would be no need for expensive proceedures or research and malpractice would be a thing of the past!
Why don't we all follow Jerome Kinderman's lead, starting today, and just boycott science? The medical industry is just a massive scam; it can't work and everybody stupidly expects relief from the mere people in it. Make them pray to Jesus, the Health Care Czar, and be cured - for FREE! "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 3:19 PM:
Well, I'll leave that to you.
I'm more interested in hearing how Jerome Kinderman no longer believes in doctors and is instead a proponent of medical prayer for all or our medicinal needs. Pray away cancer... pray away broken bones... pray away that bacterial pneumonia... pray away that rotten appendix, those non-functional kidneys, the failing heart or the ulcer. Pray away cavities... just ask Jesus for straight teeth... pray away the need for glasses, new hips, new knees. Pray for relief from high blood pressure, MS, ALS, scoliosis, neuralgia - everything - because mere men cannot (unless they're disciples of Jesus according to Jerome Kinderman) remedy these or any other ailments.
Jerome really might have the medical breaktrough we've all been waiting for and I want him to share it with us all. "
max stanfield wrote on Nov 21, 2009 3:04 PM:
rwayne wrote on Nov 21, 2009 2:33 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 1:41 PM:
No offense was intended and, while my inquiries were strictly limited to Jerome Kinderman's claims, he has seen fit to launch a personal attack.
Mr. Kinderman is the one making the nebulous assertion that only "disciples" have been somehow "enabled" to heal. His claim seems, on its face, to have some troubling conflicts with what others might view as reality and I have asked only that Mr. Kinderman clarify his thoughts in light of this conflict.
I expect only more attacks and name calling from him. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:55 PM:
To attempt to teach something that has zero possibly of being accepted or even understood is clearly a waste of time and energy. And as I've stated earlier, I have little tolerance for such people. That threshold has just been crossed. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:40 PM:
Isn't it funny when mentally challenged people or those so consumed with hate conveniently leave out salient portions they only appear to be intelligent? I have a little tolerance for unabated ignorance and intellectual dishonesty."
I agree with you, Jerry, but don't be so hard on yourself; it's never to late for you to stop being ignorant or dishonest - according to your own Blogging Scale.
So by your newest emphasis, you seem to be driving home your claim that only Jesus' disciples are doctors? Or only doctors are Jesus' disciples? Or Jesus doctors can cast out demons? What exactly ARE you trying to say, Jerry? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:37 PM:
Considering their constituents were overwhelmingly against their doing as they've done, at least Landrieu may be looking for a new job come next November; and rightfully so. Clearly, our representatives care little about what we think or want. But once again, this has all the earmarks of another revolt – Remember 1994! "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:16 PM:
Isn't it funny when mentally challenged people or those so consumed with hate conveniently leave out salient portions they only appear to be intelligent? I have a little tolerance for unabated ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 12:08 PM:
As a self-proclaimed "...'cradle-to-grave' Lutheran, [she] teach[es] bioethics at a Jesuit University, which provides excellent health care coverage. [Her] spiritual and moral values are shaped by vibrant Christian worship, bible camps, and seminary. But [she] must have missed something because [she] can't understand why Protestants and Catholics alike aren't marching in the streets demanding comprehensive health care reform." I suggest she missed something even more fundamental during her spiritual upbringing and education that has her on the fence insofar as abortion is concerned. Is this how Mattheis really feels as well? "
Billy Rubin wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:47 AM:
May we conclude, then, that Jerome Kinderman rejects the sham treatments of "mere men...incapable of healing the sick" and instead has always prayed himself to health? Is that it, Jerome? Medicine is just quackery? Because mere men are incapable of healing the sick? "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:31 AM:
I've said it over and over again, how is governement run healthcare going to be different than any other government run program that waste tax dollars and is little more than one more handout from the government? Government controlled healthcare will increase what we rely on the government for and bring us closer to the brink of finacial/economical collapse which will leave many more millions in more dire situation later than the few benifit now. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:12 AM:
America and Americans are innately generous when it comes to caring for those who are unable to care for themselves. We DO have the best healthcare system on the planet (again, my opinion of course, but shared by many more). Could and should it be improved? Absolutely! But to do what Obama and his cohorts desire makes no sense whatsoever. This is nothing more than a power grab to ultimately make each one of us fully dependent upon the government.
These are two very bad bills that will do nothing to improve the situation; it will only become much worse and our progeny will be left paying for it as they search for REAL reform. "
Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Nov 21, 2009 11:03 AM:
Is it just me or does this sound like the basis for socialism?
Using Robert's arguements then I would have to assume that he is also for a government reform on grocery stores since there are still hungry people. So then the government sould open government owned food outlets that undercut other grocery stores by 40% (this obviously wouldn't hurt other stores) to feed the millions of hungry in the country. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:58 AM:
What will certainly be anti-Christian is when (not if) abortions will ultimately be provided for under these "reforms." "
voter wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:29 AM:
voter wrote on Nov 21, 2009 10:28 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 9:59 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 21, 2009 9:26 AM:
Yes, Jesus healed the sick, but even you should admit that we are nowhere near as capable as Jesus when it comes to the sick and afflicted. And while you misquoted scripture by accident (it should be Matthew 10:8 in paragraph 3), as mere men we are incapable of healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing lepers or casting out demons as the Disciples were so enabled.
Still, I wonder if you have actually read both of these bills in their current states that enabled you to claim that either would "...create the greatest good for the greatest number." I simply don't see it.
Finally, I cannot for the life of me understand why you inserted the quote from Dr. Anna Marie Vigen in your letter. Are you suggesting there's validity to her claim regarding Christians and the abortion debates? I hope not. "
Comments on this story are now closed.