If ministers really wanted to help their people..

**maxx** · January-01-10, 09:34 PM

They would show "Sicko" and summarize the information from it for their people and work for affordable health care for all. But maybe a lot of them feed off people's feelings of desperation and want to be the only source of comfort for them.

**Mikeg** · January-01-10, 10:04 PM

But maybe a lot of them feed off people's feelings of desperation and want to be the only source of comfort for them

It's obvious that you have no understanding of the magnitude and effectiveness of religious and private charity in this country. If you hadn't qualified that statement, you could easily be mistaken for someone who is bigoted against people of faith.

**maxx** · January-01-10, 10:17 PM

I haven't heard about any Detroit ministers talking about the need for affordable health care for everyone. And what place needs it more than Detroit? A lot of the charity I see in Detroit looks like giving a fish instead of a fishing rod. But my point is that the churches could be doing a lot to educate their people about the issues surrounding healthcare by showing a movie like "Sicko". Healthcare is the huge issue that a lot of other issues depend on including drug rehab and parenting.

Retroit · January-02-10, 12:41 AM

What does being a minister have to do with promoting government-controlled health care? Would you want the Surgeon General telling people that they should go to church?

**Ltdave** · January-02-10, 10:10 AM

What does being a minister have to do with promoting government-controlled health care?

when ministers raise the issue of supporting pro-LIFE candidates who tend to lean to the right of center, the feds threaten thru the IRS to [[and sometimes do) withdraw their non-profit and tax-free status...

maybe they realize that its a political issue that could threaten their 501C3 or C7 status...

Retroit · January-02-10, 10:27 AM

True...or maybe they [[the ministers) realize that people go to church to worship their God, not their government...

Retroit · January-02-10, 10:44 AM

If any minister does show Sicko, I would hope, in the interest of fairness, that they would present a counterargument. Perhaps this 20/20 "Sick In America" special would do:

http://www.drgov.com/?p=76

**ghettopalmetto** · January-02-10, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

What does being a minister have to do with promoting government-controlled health care? Would you want the Surgeon General telling people that they should go to church?

Gee, you're absolutely right. You know what else we should do? We should get rid of the oppressive burden where state governments determine who can and cannot be a licensed physician. There wouldn't be such an artificial physician shortage if we let the free market work its magic. If people didn't have to pass state board examinations, we'd have more doctors, who would compete with each other in the free market, and health care costs would be lower for all of us. Well, those of us who have health insurance, anyway ;-)

Now gimme some leeches, dammit.

Retroit · January-02-10, 11:21 AM

Just for the record, I'm in favor of licensing physicians. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-02-10, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Just for the record, I'm in favor of licensing physicians. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Licensing is just another form of government control. Who is the government to decide who's qualified? If I want to see an unlicensed physician, I should be able to, right?

Retroit · January-02-10, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Licensing is just another form of government control. Who is the government to decide who's qualified? If I want to see an unlicensed physician, I should be able to, right?

Do doctors pay for their licensing? If not, why not?...and how much is it costing us?

**maxx** · January-09-10, 03:16 PM

My point is that ministers could be doing a lot more to educate their parishioners about real world issues that affect their everyday lives like healthcare. But most I guess would rather just collect the people's money and give them what they want to hear, namely some fine gospel music and generally shouting about Jesus, than some honest discussion of health care in Michigan. I know they talk about evolution and abortion.

**maxx** · January-09-10, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Retroit

Do doctors pay for their licensing? If not, why not?...and how much is it costing us?

http://www.fsmb.org/usmle_eliinitial.html

Licensing fees look pretty nominal for most states. I'd guess they pay for their own unless they are part of a federal poverty program .

ziggyselbin · January-09-10, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Gee, you're absolutely right. You know what else we should do? We should get rid of the oppressive burden where state governments determine who can and cannot be a licensed physician. There wouldn't be such an artificial physician shortage if we let the free market work its magic. If people didn't have to pass state board examinations, we'd have more doctors, who would compete with each other in the free market, and health care costs would be lower for all of us. Well, those of us who have health insurance, anyway ;-)

Now gimme some leeches, dammit.

I am not sure but I hope you were not disparaging the use of leeches in medicine.They have been and continue to be very useful.

smudge pot · January-09-10, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by ziggyselbin

I am not sure but I hope you were not disparaging the use of leeches in medicine.They have been and continue to be very useful.

And, during the Civil War, it was observed that maggot infestation often spared wounded limbs from the need for amputation. Back to the main topic: maxx, I'm going to let my boys handle this, good luck.

**oladub** · January-09-10, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Gee, you're absolutely right. You know what else we should do? We should get rid of the oppressive burden where state governments determine who can and cannot be a licensed physician. There wouldn't be such an artificial physician shortage if we let the free market work its magic. If people didn't have to pass state board examinations, we'd have more doctors, who would compete with each other in the free market, and health care costs would be lower for all of us. Well, those of us who have health insurance, anyway ;-)

Now gimme some leeches, dammit.

gp, States do have the right to license doctors, hairdressers, masseuses, day care workers, and anyone and anything else they choose. You were probably being facetious in defense of the nanny state but congratulations anyway if you took a red pill for a change. There are other ways to achieve much the same result outside of government controlled health care which has become so unaffordable in this country. Underwriters laboratory, insurance standards, or bar exams come to mind.

Many states have allowed nurses and physician assistants to do tasks formerly only permitted by licensed doctors. This is bucking the trend toward ever more certification but does eliminate part of the artificial physician shortage and does, as you suggest, lower costs. I would suggest similarly reducing the number of pharmaceuticals that require pharmacists. The pharmaceutical companies would of course object.

maxx, Should preachers be preaching the heavenly virtues of single payer health care programs as characterized in Sicko or the unaffordable universal coverage provided by Obamacare? Do these preachers have to subscribe to Keynesian economics, Austrian economics, or can they be economic illiterates? Can you name some other countries where the clergy is/was expected to propagate political solutions?

**maxx** · January-10-10, 10:07 AM

I've heard of churches who are receiving federal stimulus money in Detroit. So what are they doing with it? Church is a place where people get together. It's an ideal teaching moment. There is basic information about the rise in insurance premiums and the reasons why health care costs have risen that people should know. Churches could be centers of progressive action. M.L. King was a minister. Where are the Kings of today and what are they teaching their flocks? It costs very little to inform people.

**maxx** · January-10-10, 01:08 PM

Here's some info Detroit ministers could be sharing.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

**Mikeg** · January-10-10, 02:18 PM

maxx,

What did your minister say when you suggested that he/she should to show "Sicko" to their flock and then sermonize on it? If you were rebuffed, did you offer to arrange a showing of the movie in the church hall for those who might be interested? How do your fellow church members respond when you try to chat them up on the subject of increased government involvement in health insurance?

Direct action with your target audience is more effective than railing anonymously on an Internet forum.

**Zacha341** · January-14-10, 06:48 AM

Yes, the level of private Christian based charity in this country is very high and documented withstanding a specific dysfunctional church one may cite. Yet, those coming from an anti-clerical position often ignore this fact.

Originally Posted by Mikeg

It's obvious that you have no understanding of the magnitude and effectiveness of religious and private charity in this country. If you hadn't qualified that statement, you could easily be mistaken for someone who is bigoted against people of faith.

**rb336** · January-14-10, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yes, the level of private Christian based charity

define that. what happens when you eliminate the collection plate giving, which is considered "charitable" by the IRS but really is no more charitable than paying your country club dues, since the vast majority of it goes to pay for your church/club staffing and building maintenance?

**rb336** · January-14-10, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Retroit

If any minister does show Sicko, I would hope, in the interest of fairness, that they would present a counterargument. Perhaps this 20/20 "Sick In America" special would do:

http://www.drgov.com/?p=76

god, more John Stossel bullshit. not only did he misrepresent arguments, he manufactured information out of whole cloth [[in other words, he made shit up that had no factual basis), and much of what was in there was scewered as false at the time. Disagree with Sicko as you might -- the facts back up virtually every part of it [[even a right-wing Fox reviewer admitted that)

**Mikeg** · January-14-10, 12:00 PM

Here is some 2008 data on religious and private charity in the USA.

Donations to charitable causes in the United States was an estimated $307.6 billion in 2008. That is an amount equal to 10.5% of the entire 2008 US Federal Budget. It is 1.5 times the entire budgeted amount of 2008 spending on Medicaid and SCHIP.

Voluntary giving sources and amounts [[% of total):

Individuals - $229.2 billion [[75%)
Charitable bequests - $22.6 billion [[7%)
Corporate - $14.5 billion [[5%)
Foundation grantmaking - $41.2 billion [[13%)

Voluntary giving recipients and amounts [[% of total):

Religious congregations and organizations - $106.0 billion [[35%)
Education organizations - $40.9 billion [[13%)
Foundations - $32.6 billion [[10%)
Health Organizations - $21.6 billion [[7%)
Public-Society Benefit orgs - $23.8 billion [[8%)
Art/Culture/Humanities orgs - $12.7 billion [[4%)
International Affairs orgs - $13.3 billion [[4%)
Environment and Animal Welfare orgs - $6.5 billion [[2%)

[source]

**rb336** · January-14-10, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Here is some 2008 data on religious and private charity in the USA.

Religious congregations and organizations - $106.0 billion [[35%)

It would be nice to have a breakdown between actual church-based charitable organizations like Salvation Army or Focus Hope, and giving to your little religious club, which, frankly, isn't charitable giving at all

Retroit · January-14-10, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

god, more John Stossel bullshit. not only did he misrepresent arguments, he manufactured information out of whole cloth [[in other words, he made shit up that had no factual basis), and much of what was in there was scewered as false at the time. Disagree with Sicko as you might -- the facts back up virtually every part of it [[even a right-wing Fox reviewer admitted that)

Would you care to disprove something that John Stossel said?