The sick motivation behind the religious right’s Obamacare sabotage

strollingbones

Diamond Member
Sep 19, 2008
95,445
29,067
2,260
chicken farm
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is now in its fourth year, and the numbers point to a solid success. Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people can afford health insurance for the first time, and millions more still have health insurance because now they can’t be dropped by their insurance company for getting sick. The once-astronomical growth of costs has slowed substantially, and in some markets is even decreasing.
The ACA isn’t a perfect solution, but its successes deserve to be celebrated. And they’re especially notable in light of the fact that the law has had to run (and is still facing) a gauntlet of the most ferocious opposition that’s ever confronted any major piece of legislation: a blizzard of lawsuits, filibusters, attack ads spreading ludicrous scare tactics, lockstep opposition from conservative politicians. Even now, refusenik Republicans are deliberately impeding it by refusing to set up their own state exchanges or expand Medicaid in states they control. The Republicans have tried so hard to make Obamacare fail because its success undermines their creed that government can never accomplish great things or make society a better place to live. As evidence of this, a new talking point has become the conservative refrain: that it should never have been the government’s job to aid the needy at all, and that people should instead turn to private charity, like churches, for help. For example, the Republican senator-elect from Iowa, Joni Ernst, has said:

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”

snip

While most evangelical churches proclaim that they want people to convert voluntarily, their actions show otherwise. When given the chance to coerce their audience, they’ll do so gleefully, as we’ve seen in prison ministries all over the country where inmates are given special rewards and privileges in exchange for their cooperation with religious indoctrination.

What they want, in short, is a captive audience. If government charity were to be cut off, the churches wouldn’t be able to come close to supplying the wants of everyone, and so they’d have strong incentive to impose stringent conditions on the people they did help. Only the most faithful, the most compliant, the most submissive would be able to get through the door.

And that’s precisely the state of affairs that the religious right yearns for. What they want is to build a theocracy from the ground up, where the poor and the needy are abjectly dependent on a church that can yank away the necessities of life if it judges them insufficiently compliant, and so the masses will have no choice but to be corralled and steered. Even today, we can see this conservative vision put into practice, and witness the terrible consequences that result when it blocks the government from helping the needy. Consider Mississippi, which is both the most religious and has the most churches per capita of any U.S. state. If rosy visions like Ernst’s were true, Mississippi would be the best place in the country to live. But in reality, it’s the poorest and (by life expectancy) sickest state.

Nowhere in the U.S. needs healthcare reform more badly than Mississippi does; and at the same time, no other place seems less likely to get it, thanks to anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor that that still burns white-hot. There was once a time when conservative politicians believed that government had a role in fixing these kinds of problems. According to a report by Sarah Varney in Politico, as recently as 2007, Mississippi’s Republican state government was planning its own health insurance exchange (paralleling the similar system created by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts).

full article:

The sick motivation behind the religious right 8217 s Obamacare sabotage - Salon.com

instead of attacking the source please try to refute with facts
 
oh brother, Billions of dollars to set it up, 1000's of new government employees we get to pay and only 6million has signed on and they call that A RAGING SUCCESS

unbelievable. they could of just went on welfare or Medicaid
 
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is now in its fourth year, and the numbers point to a solid success. Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people can afford health insurance for the first time, and millions more still have health insurance because now they can’t be dropped by their insurance company for getting sick. The once-astronomical growth of costs has slowed substantially, and in some markets is even decreasing.
The ACA isn’t a perfect solution, but its successes deserve to be celebrated. And they’re especially notable in light of the fact that the law has had to run (and is still facing) a gauntlet of the most ferocious opposition that’s ever confronted any major piece of legislation: a blizzard of lawsuits, filibusters, attack ads spreading ludicrous scare tactics, lockstep opposition from conservative politicians. Even now, refusenik Republicans are deliberately impeding it by refusing to set up their own state exchanges or expand Medicaid in states they control. The Republicans have tried so hard to make Obamacare fail because its success undermines their creed that government can never accomplish great things or make society a better place to live. As evidence of this, a new talking point has become the conservative refrain: that it should never have been the government’s job to aid the needy at all, and that people should instead turn to private charity, like churches, for help. For example, the Republican senator-elect from Iowa, Joni Ernst, has said:

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”

snip

While most evangelical churches proclaim that they want people to convert voluntarily, their actions show otherwise. When given the chance to coerce their audience, they’ll do so gleefully, as we’ve seen in prison ministries all over the country where inmates are given special rewards and privileges in exchange for their cooperation with religious indoctrination.

What they want, in short, is a captive audience. If government charity were to be cut off, the churches wouldn’t be able to come close to supplying the wants of everyone, and so they’d have strong incentive to impose stringent conditions on the people they did help. Only the most faithful, the most compliant, the most submissive would be able to get through the door.

And that’s precisely the state of affairs that the religious right yearns for. What they want is to build a theocracy from the ground up, where the poor and the needy are abjectly dependent on a church that can yank away the necessities of life if it judges them insufficiently compliant, and so the masses will have no choice but to be corralled and steered. Even today, we can see this conservative vision put into practice, and witness the terrible consequences that result when it blocks the government from helping the needy. Consider Mississippi, which is both the most religious and has the most churches per capita of any U.S. state. If rosy visions like Ernst’s were true, Mississippi would be the best place in the country to live. But in reality, it’s the poorest and (by life expectancy) sickest state.

Nowhere in the U.S. needs healthcare reform more badly than Mississippi does; and at the same time, no other place seems less likely to get it, thanks to anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor that that still burns white-hot. There was once a time when conservative politicians believed that government had a role in fixing these kinds of problems. According to a report by Sarah Varney in Politico, as recently as 2007, Mississippi’s Republican state government was planning its own health insurance exchange (paralleling the similar system created by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts).

full article:

The sick motivation behind the religious right 8217 s Obamacare sabotage - Salon.com

instead of attacking the source please try to refute with facts

LOL, it is an opinion piece, you need to support it's contentions with facts.

Until then you are simply assuming the authors opinion is correct.
 
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is now in its fourth year, and the numbers point to a solid success. Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people can afford health insurance for the first time, and millions more still have health insurance because now they can’t be dropped by their insurance company for getting sick. The once-astronomical growth of costs has slowed substantially, and in some markets is even decreasing.
The ACA isn’t a perfect solution, but its successes deserve to be celebrated. And they’re especially notable in light of the fact that the law has had to run (and is still facing) a gauntlet of the most ferocious opposition that’s ever confronted any major piece of legislation: a blizzard of lawsuits, filibusters, attack ads spreading ludicrous scare tactics, lockstep opposition from conservative politicians. Even now, refusenik Republicans are deliberately impeding it by refusing to set up their own state exchanges or expand Medicaid in states they control. The Republicans have tried so hard to make Obamacare fail because its success undermines their creed that government can never accomplish great things or make society a better place to live. As evidence of this, a new talking point has become the conservative refrain: that it should never have been the government’s job to aid the needy at all, and that people should instead turn to private charity, like churches, for help. For example, the Republican senator-elect from Iowa, Joni Ernst, has said:

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”

snip

While most evangelical churches proclaim that they want people to convert voluntarily, their actions show otherwise. When given the chance to coerce their audience, they’ll do so gleefully, as we’ve seen in prison ministries all over the country where inmates are given special rewards and privileges in exchange for their cooperation with religious indoctrination.

What they want, in short, is a captive audience. If government charity were to be cut off, the churches wouldn’t be able to come close to supplying the wants of everyone, and so they’d have strong incentive to impose stringent conditions on the people they did help. Only the most faithful, the most compliant, the most submissive would be able to get through the door.

And that’s precisely the state of affairs that the religious right yearns for. What they want is to build a theocracy from the ground up, where the poor and the needy are abjectly dependent on a church that can yank away the necessities of life if it judges them insufficiently compliant, and so the masses will have no choice but to be corralled and steered. Even today, we can see this conservative vision put into practice, and witness the terrible consequences that result when it blocks the government from helping the needy. Consider Mississippi, which is both the most religious and has the most churches per capita of any U.S. state. If rosy visions like Ernst’s were true, Mississippi would be the best place in the country to live. But in reality, it’s the poorest and (by life expectancy) sickest state.

Nowhere in the U.S. needs healthcare reform more badly than Mississippi does; and at the same time, no other place seems less likely to get it, thanks to anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor that that still burns white-hot. There was once a time when conservative politicians believed that government had a role in fixing these kinds of problems. According to a report by Sarah Varney in Politico, as recently as 2007, Mississippi’s Republican state government was planning its own health insurance exchange (paralleling the similar system created by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts).

full article:

The sick motivation behind the religious right 8217 s Obamacare sabotage - Salon.com

instead of attacking the source please try to refute with facts

The extremist evangelicals believe in myths and miracles. The hard facts that private charities cannot cope with the problems of the homeless, let alone the sick who are without healthcare is something they refuse to acknowledge.

They would have a case if they were taking care of all of the homeless and sick to begin with, but they aren't and never will.

A similar ludicrous argument could be made for national defense. Why do we need the government to defend this nation? Why can't everyone just own a gun and then let some other nation try and invade us? And if we need to deal with ISIS we can just lease some passenger aircraft and use those to bomb Iraq and Syria. Think of the trillions of dollars that will save taxpayers.

That is essentially what these extremist evangelicals are saying about healthcare. They can do a better job but they never managed to make it happen.

How do you make them face up the reality of their shortcomings? I have no idea but until we do that they are a danger to the health of the American people, quite literally.
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
 
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is now in its fourth year, and the numbers point to a solid success. Thanks to Obamacare, millions of people can afford health insurance for the first time, and millions more still have health insurance because now they can’t be dropped by their insurance company for getting sick. The once-astronomical growth of costs has slowed substantially, and in some markets is even decreasing.
The ACA isn’t a perfect solution, but its successes deserve to be celebrated. And they’re especially notable in light of the fact that the law has had to run (and is still facing) a gauntlet of the most ferocious opposition that’s ever confronted any major piece of legislation: a blizzard of lawsuits, filibusters, attack ads spreading ludicrous scare tactics, lockstep opposition from conservative politicians. Even now, refusenik Republicans are deliberately impeding it by refusing to set up their own state exchanges or expand Medicaid in states they control. The Republicans have tried so hard to make Obamacare fail because its success undermines their creed that government can never accomplish great things or make society a better place to live. As evidence of this, a new talking point has become the conservative refrain: that it should never have been the government’s job to aid the needy at all, and that people should instead turn to private charity, like churches, for help. For example, the Republican senator-elect from Iowa, Joni Ernst, has said:

“We have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do,” she went on. “They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it, but we have gotten away from that. Now we’re at a point where the government will just give away anything. We have to stop that.”

snip

While most evangelical churches proclaim that they want people to convert voluntarily, their actions show otherwise. When given the chance to coerce their audience, they’ll do so gleefully, as we’ve seen in prison ministries all over the country where inmates are given special rewards and privileges in exchange for their cooperation with religious indoctrination.

What they want, in short, is a captive audience. If government charity were to be cut off, the churches wouldn’t be able to come close to supplying the wants of everyone, and so they’d have strong incentive to impose stringent conditions on the people they did help. Only the most faithful, the most compliant, the most submissive would be able to get through the door.

And that’s precisely the state of affairs that the religious right yearns for. What they want is to build a theocracy from the ground up, where the poor and the needy are abjectly dependent on a church that can yank away the necessities of life if it judges them insufficiently compliant, and so the masses will have no choice but to be corralled and steered. Even today, we can see this conservative vision put into practice, and witness the terrible consequences that result when it blocks the government from helping the needy. Consider Mississippi, which is both the most religious and has the most churches per capita of any U.S. state. If rosy visions like Ernst’s were true, Mississippi would be the best place in the country to live. But in reality, it’s the poorest and (by life expectancy) sickest state.

Nowhere in the U.S. needs healthcare reform more badly than Mississippi does; and at the same time, no other place seems less likely to get it, thanks to anti-liberal, anti-Obama fervor that that still burns white-hot. There was once a time when conservative politicians believed that government had a role in fixing these kinds of problems. According to a report by Sarah Varney in Politico, as recently as 2007, Mississippi’s Republican state government was planning its own health insurance exchange (paralleling the similar system created by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts).

full article:

The sick motivation behind the religious right 8217 s Obamacare sabotage - Salon.com

instead of attacking the source please try to refute with facts

Yes the far left uses a known far left blog religious site for their "facts" and has amnesia over who Jonathan Gruber is..
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(smile) Ernst made an innocuous reference to a time in the past and people like you (in your hatred and religious bigotry) extrapolated a false narrative in order to bash Christians.

It's just that simple.

Fact, in times past MANY Churches indeed had their own food pantries and indeed DID help support their own Communities.

Ernst was not advocating a Theocracy and no matter how you try you can't find that in her words.....and SHE is what the author based all of his "theories" on.

Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(smile) Ernst made an innocuous reference to a time in the past and people like you (in your hatred and religious bigotry) extrapolated a false narrative in order to bash Christians.

It's just that simple.

Fact, in times past MANY Churches indeed had their own food pantries and indeed DID help support their own Communities.

Ernst was not advocating a Theocracy and no matter how you try you can't find that in her words.....and SHE is what the author based all of his "theories" on.

Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

In my state many churches still have food pantries. the author of that hate filled garbage and people like them: make me sick
 
and notice they had no problems blaming the "religious right" over it all

What a crock

come on bones

Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(smile) Ernst made an innocuous reference to a time in the past and people like you (in your hatred and religious bigotry) extrapolated a false narrative in order to bash Christians.

It's just that simple.

Fact, in times past MANY Churches indeed had their own food pantries and indeed DID help support their own Communities.

Ernst was not advocating a Theocracy and no matter how you try you can't find that in her words.....and SHE is what the author based all of his "theories" on.

Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

In my state many churches still have food pantries. the author of that hate filled garbage and people like them: make me sick

That author was simply expressing the hatred of religion that many in the Left feel.

It wasn't even well written and make illogical jumps that show a lack of the ability to think in a linear manner.

DT is simply embracing his/her own hatred of Religion.
 
Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

Where do you want me to start?

How about Congress?

H.R. 3799 Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

That was an attempt to subvert the Constitution by limiting the power of the SCOTUS and impose your God as the supreme authority in America.

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
 
Joni Ernst is the one who raised the topic of religious charities. Blame her for inadvertently exposing the hypocrisy of the religious right.

LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(smile) Ernst made an innocuous reference to a time in the past and people like you (in your hatred and religious bigotry) extrapolated a false narrative in order to bash Christians.

It's just that simple.

Fact, in times past MANY Churches indeed had their own food pantries and indeed DID help support their own Communities.

Ernst was not advocating a Theocracy and no matter how you try you can't find that in her words.....and SHE is what the author based all of his "theories" on.

Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

In my state many churches still have food pantries. the author of that hate filled garbage and people like them: make me sick

That author was simply expressing the hatred of religion that many in the Left feel.

It wasn't even well written and make illogical jumps that show a lack of the ability to think in a linear manner.

DT is simply embracing his/her own hatred of Religion.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

Where do you want me to start?

How about Congress?

H.R. 3799 Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

That was an attempt to subvert the Constitution by limiting the power of the SCOTUS and impose your God as the supreme authority in America.

A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2004'.

TITLE I--JURISDICTION

SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.

You have no idea what any of that says , do you?

If you think your highlighted sections is attempting to establish a Theocracy you just aren't very bright.
 
LOL, she made an innocuous reference to a bygone time and from that hate filled bigots made the illogical jump to a Theocracy.

You Libs are simply ill educated.

Your rose tinted spectacles of your idyllic past doesn't stand up under scrutiny. Had you read the article you would have learned that churches were not covering the needs of the sick and homeless back then.

The religious right's desire for a theocracy has been around for many decades. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

(smile) Ernst made an innocuous reference to a time in the past and people like you (in your hatred and religious bigotry) extrapolated a false narrative in order to bash Christians.

It's just that simple.

Fact, in times past MANY Churches indeed had their own food pantries and indeed DID help support their own Communities.

Ernst was not advocating a Theocracy and no matter how you try you can't find that in her words.....and SHE is what the author based all of his "theories" on.

Can you show where in America any Religious Group sought to force a theocracy on anyone?

In my state many churches still have food pantries. the author of that hate filled garbage and people like them: make me sick

That author was simply expressing the hatred of religion that many in the Left feel.

It wasn't even well written and make illogical jumps that show a lack of the ability to think in a linear manner.

DT is simply embracing his/her own hatred of Religion.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The article presents no factual evidence of anything, I invite you to show where it does.

I further invite you to show where Ernst comment in any way can be construed as desiring to force a Theocracy on anyone.
 

Forum List

Back
Top