Sunday, June 15, 2008

Time Magazine Writes of Obama's Faith Outreach


Obama's Play for the Faithful

By Amy Sullivan

It's safe to say there's no page in the Democratic handbook that recommends sitting down with several dozen right-of-center Christian leaders one week after clinching the party's presidential nomination. So the fact that Barack Obama slipped away Tuesday afternoon to a borrowed Chicago law-firm conference room for some prayer and frank talk about his faith and to face some tough questioning from heavy hitters in the Evangelical, Catholic and mainline Protestant worlds could be the clearest sign yet that he really does intend to practice a different kind of politics. But it's undoubtedly also a signal that he recognizes the damage done to his campaign by a spring that featured the Jeremiah Wright show and rumors about his true religious leanings — and ended with a decision to leave his church.


Among those gathered on Tuesday were African-American preachers like T.D. Jakes, Hispanic pastors like Sam Rodriguez and a few conservative Catholics like Pepperdine professor Doug Kmiec, who has been denied Communion because of his public support for Obama. But the majority of attendees were white Evangelical leaders, including one conservative member of Evangelical royalty, Franklin Graham.

"The purpose was not to line up endorsements," says one Obama aide. "But some very important Evangelicals left this meeting impressed. I think they'll go back to their enclaves telling an interesting story." The nearly two-hour-long meeting opened and closed with prayer. For the balance of the time, Obama spoke about his faith journey — a topic that he has written and spoken about extensively but that was new to many of those present — and fielded sometimes pointed questions.

"It never got heated," says another Obama adviser, "but these issues are tough. Abortion is going to come up. Three or four times, in fact." But while the topic of abortion is often a conversation ender or results in a terse decision to "agree to disagree," this group wanted to get at real answers, asking Obama to explain how he thought through the issue as a Christian. They also talked about poverty, health care and Darfur, among other concerns. "When he talked about trying to bring people together on poverty or abortion reduction," says one participant, "there were a lot of nods in the room, even from some traditional Evangelicals who are frustrated with the lack of progress."

The conversation became most personal when Obama talked about the decision he and his family made just a few weeks ago to leave Trinity United Church of Christ, where he has worshiped for almost 20 years. The move has been dissected in the press as mostly a matter of political calculation. But the pastors seemed supportive of Obama, understanding the difficulty of leaving a religious home. "That crowd got it better than anybody," says an Obama aide.
Several of the Evangelicals who were present say that despite their differences with Obama, the vigorous discussion was a welcome break from the tepid theological inquiry that has existed during the Bush years. "Obama is not some neophyte who is intimidated by the prospect of conversation with religious leaders on these matters," says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. "That makes it a lot of fun, because the country desperately needs the capacity to carry on a conversation about religion and politics in a way that is affirming of people's differences."

The meeting ended on a positive note, with many of the leaders thanking the candidate for bringing them together. Some of the most conservative seemed especially surprised that a Democratic nominee would seek out a conversation with them. A smaller group even walked back to the candidate's headquarters in downtown Chicago to tour the office and pick up some bumper stickers.

Throughout the Democratic primaries, Obama consistently lost white Evangelical and Catholic voters to Hillary Clinton, raising questions about his ability to appeal to those constituencies in the general election. However, two polls conducted in May appear to indicate otherwise — at least in terms of support for John McCain among those voters. A Gallup survey released last week showed him pulling even with McCain among Catholics, and a Calvin College poll revealed anemic Evangelical support for McCain (57%, compared with 72% who voted for George W. Bush in 2004). Even so, Obama's relationship with religious voters remains a concern for his campaign.

To Obama's advisers, the John Kerry campaign is a cautionary tale of what happens when a candidate allows his opponent to define his faith. Which is why the Obama campaign has a senior religion adviser, a Catholic outreach director, half a dozen religion interns and just announced it is bringing aboard an aide to focus on Evangelical outreach (it is expected to be Shaun Casey, professor of ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary). The campaign has also announced an effort to reach younger religious voters and will probably benefit from the work of a new PAC — called Matthew 25 — launched this week to rally Christian support for Obama.


For the rest of the article, click here:





47 comments:

Rustler45 said...

Boring.

Rustler45 said...

Yawn.

Anonymous said...

Roman Catholics for Obama '08

Some ignore his pro-abortion voting record, others rationalize it.

by Paul Kengor | June 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first time I learned about the practice I was horrified. It was the mid-1990s. The source was Sharon Dunsmore, a nurse in a hospital NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) who wrote a small booklet about the experience. One day on the job she had been summoned “stat” to the delivery room to deal with an “oops abortion”—a failed abortion in which the baby unexpectedly survived, or, as Dunsmore quoted the pediatrician on the scene, “had the audacity to survive.”

The team struggled as to whether to continue intubating the child—now a little boy, not a “fetus”—who clearly was not going to make it, mangled and destroyed as he was. He gasped for air as the doctor left the room, allowing nature to take its cruel course, leaving the boy with Dunsmore. No further medical care would be administered.

Typically in these situations, the infant is left alone—on a cold metal table, in a corner, on a bare bed, in a trash can. Dunsmore did not have the heart to do that. She stayed with the boy.

In her account, Dunsmore went into painstaking detail about what happened next—the breathing, the wetting—with such vividness that I, a mere distant reader, couldn’t decide whether to cry or vomit. Recalling the scene she described never ceases to make me sad. She wrote of how she named him “Tiny Tim,” took him in her arms, held his little hand, and sang to him: “Jesus loves the little children….” The little boy fought as best he could, but to no avail. She whispered “goodbye” to him, and told him he “did matter to someone.”

I have never forgotten that story and since then have even met some of these abortion survivors, one of whom visited Grove City College to speak before a spellbound group of our students at the campus chapel a few years ago.

OBAMA’S STANCE ON ABORTION

The United States Congress has also learned about this grisly reality, and finally, in 2002, passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, requiring that babies like Tiny Tim who survive abortions receive medical care from the medical professionals in their midst—medical professionals who suddenly must morph from killers to their traditional roles of healers and helpers.

The bill was so obviously necessary and became so popular that it faced no real opposition, even from the most fanatical of Congress’ pro-abortion extremists, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, supported the legislation.

Indeed, who could ever oppose such legislation? Actually, there is someone: Barack Obama, who appears as of May to be the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, and possibly the next president of the United States.

Obama was not a member of the US Senate at the time that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress. But he was a member of the Illinois state legislature, where similar legislation was introduced at the state level. There, Obama twice voted against the legislation, in 2002 and 2003, and as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee blocked another attempt to bring the legislation to the floor of the Illinois Senate.

The pro-life community in the state of Illinois was aghast, and pro-life Catholics were horrified. Yet today Catholics around the country are lining up to endorse Barack Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States. They are stumping hard for Obama, who, if elected, has promised to do whatever he can to appoint justices and support legislation guaranteeing decades of protection for Roe v. Wade.

CATHOLICS IN HIS CAMP

Who are these Catholics? They are an eclectic bunch, from politicians like Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Democratic Governor Tim Kaine (Va.), Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (N.M.), Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-Mass.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team.

The support of the Kennedys and Kerrys is no surprise; they are pro-abortion party hacks. But the endorsement of Dan Rooney, known to be a daily communicant, is bizarre. Among other reasons, his team’s brutal Steel Curtain and Blitz-burg defenses do not call to my mind the image of the man that National Journal ranks as the most liberal member of the US Senate.

There are also, of course, the predictable “Catholic” colleges that, in defiance of repeated warnings by the bishops regarding Catholic institutions and pro-abortion politicians, have offered platforms to Obama in the form of on-campus political rallies: St. Peter’s College in New Jersey (in January) and Loras College in Iowa (in March).

But no group of Catholics seems quite as odd as the one titled “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08,” which dubs Barack Obama “the best and right candidate for Catholic voters.” The group asserts: “[W]e, as Catholics, believe Catholics can and should vote for Barack Obama because his platform aligns well with Catholic Social Teaching.”

Their website (www.romancatholicsforobama.com) leads with a long quote from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which states, “The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of the moral vision for society … In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.”

But the group completely ignores the fact that Obama’s record contradicts this statement, instead underscoring Obama’s stance on the death penalty, terrorism, Iran, American diplomacy, regional diplomacy, nuclear weapons, the “21st century military,” gun policy, global poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “new partnerships in Asia,” Darfur, and “the culture of secrecy.” In short, the group focuses on everything except the primary moral principles taught authoritatively by the Catholic Church.

Navigating one’s way around the website of “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” is a dispiriting immersion in inanity, moral equivalency, and delusional thinking. This is likewise true for another (ecumenical) website, www.faith.barackobama.com, which has posted a number of endorsements from Catholics like “Tamara S.” of Roswell, Georgia, who says, “I’m disturbed by the hijacking of the Republican party by far-right Christians.” Or take this one: “I have no interest in living in a theocracy,” writes Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Church in Chicago, who is most concerned with “issues of poverty and issues of justice and equal access and opportunity, especially when dealing with children and education and healthcare.”

CASEY SUPPORTS OBAMA

Many of these Catholics dismiss or downplay the Church’s teachings on the sanctity and dignity of human life. But what about the explicitly pro-life Catholics who are supporting Obama? The two most high-profile, Catholic pro-life endorsers of Barack Obama for president are Bob Casey, Jr. and Doug Kmiec.

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. is the son of and heir to the great pro-life stalwart, Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania. It was hard to find a pro-life Democrat as principled as the late governor, who was named in the title of the 1992 court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The late Casey was shocked by the abortion stridency of his party, so much so that in 1996 he considered a run for the presidency against the incumbent president from his own party, Bill Clinton. In 2006, the younger Casey, who is likewise considered a pro-life Catholic Democrat, unseated the strongest pro-lifer in the US Senate, Senator Rick Santorum. Since then, Casey has been a grave disappointment, not at all picking up the torch from Santorum.

Consequently, it was not surprising to learn that in the thick of the crucial Pennsylvania primary, Casey endorsed Barack Obama for president. He then announced he would be touring Pennsylvania cities with Obama, including, incidentally, those small towns in rural areas that Obama said were comprised of “bitter” folks who “cling” to God and guns out of frustration at the federal government’s failures.

If Obama had won Pennsylvania on April 22 rather than losing to Hillary Clinton by 10 points, he would have been propelled to the Democratic Party nomination in Denver. So, Casey jumped into the fray to do his part.

Casey was also there with Obama at the April 13 “Compassion Forum” at Pennsylvania’s Messiah College, broadcast by CNN. Abortion rights fell into the category of “compassion” for Obama, who fenced a question about whether he believes life begins at conception by saying, “I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” Earlier in the campaign Obama had made the stunning remark that if one of his young daughters got pregnant out of wedlock, he would not want her to be “punished with a baby.”

THE CASE OF DOUG KMIEC

If any of this bothers Casey, he hasn’t expressed it. Casey’s endorsement of Obama demonstrates that he is first and foremost a Democrat who places party loyalty above moral principle. The same cannot be said, however, of the endorsement of Obama by Douglas W. Kmiec, who has long been thought to be a conservative Catholic Republican.

Kmiec, a former counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was the dean of the Catholic University of America School of Law. He is currently chair of constitutional law at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. He recently was an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Kmiec calls Obama “a natural for the Catholic vote.”

“Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States,” announced Kmiec in a March 23 statement posted at Slate.com. “I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence, and genuine good will.”

Unlike other Catholics who ignore the issue altogether, Kmiec addressed his difference with Obama over abortion. But he deals with the difference unconvincingly. Kmiec acknowledges that he believes life begins at conception, “and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement,” then renders this stance meaningless with a vague hope about Obama’s openness: “In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of views and, as best as is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”

To which public pronouncements is Kmiec referring? Recall Obama’s remarks to a screaming Planned Parenthood crowd last July, to whom he promised, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn state pro-life laws nationwide and make abortion the supreme law of the land. In that speech, he told the appreciative women that Planned Parenthood was a “safety net provider” that needed to be given “discounted drugs” so that “all women” would have access to “affordable contraception.” In the speech, he hailed Margaret Sanger—eugenicist, racist, and Planned Parenthood founder—as a voice in the “struggle for equality.”

Amazingly, Kmiec read this speech and points to it as an example of Obama’s alleged flexibility. Kmiec sees the speech as lacking the vituperation of so many speeches by pro-choice Democrats to abortion groups, an interpretation that mistakenly assumes that style and tone trumps substance and policy for Obama.

Behind Obama’s smile is an uncompromising advocacy for unfettered abortion rights. Obama is committed to appointing strictly pro-abortion judges to the US Supreme Court. As for Reaganesque pro-life judges recently promoted to the court by President George W. Bush—namely, Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom Kmiec commends—Obama boasts of his votes against these two judges.

Obama has said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most stalwart abortion crusader on the high court, is his ideal justice. Kmiec, given his expertise as a legal scholar, knows this.

To be blunt, Kmiec’s perception of Obama’s openness to accommodation on abortion is pure projection. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that a President Obama would be receptive to a pro-life message. Obama himself has repeatedly made it clear that his stance on this issue will be unyielding. As president, he might say he is open to pro-lifers and that he respects them, but he would not be expected to join them on any meaningful pro-life action.

There is a psychological-emotional attraction to Obama that goes beyond the traditional reasons explaining why people, Catholics included, support certain candidates. What’s more, the Roman Catholics in Obama’s camp are largely typical of the religious left generally and left-leaning Catholics specifically who identify with and support a liberal Democrat for president. The abortion issue simply loses out to a wider swath of “social justice” issues that for them take precedence.

The Church continues to exhort Catholics to reject this moral equivalency in their voting, but Obama’s Catholic supporters don’t care, and from this atmosphere of dissent Obama hopes to ride a wave of millions of Catholic votes all the way to the White House.



Paul Kengor has most recently published God and Hillary Clinton (HarperCollins, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007). He is professor of political science at Grove City College.

Rustler45 said...

"...some prayer and frank talk about his faith and to face some tough questioning from heavy hitters in the Evangelical, Catholic and mainline Protestant worlds could be the clearest sign yet that he really does intend to practice a different kind of politics."

This part though just makes me have to laugh.

OK back to yawning.

Rustler45 said...

Anonymous, GREAT POST, BUT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO IGNORE. A MARXIST DOESN'T BOTHER HIMSELF WITH FACTS.

"Dan Rooney, known to be a daily communicant, is bizarre."

He's not alone. He needs to meet Katherine the Apostate.

"In short, the group focuses on everything except the primary moral principles taught authoritatively by the Catholic Church."

But they say he's for Catholic values. We just haven't heard which ones yet.

Vajra said...

One of the interesting things @Barack is how much he has fostered friendships with Catholics in Chicago. I think he has internalized a Catholic sense of community, and that has made him more effective and also more devoted to helping "the least of these."

Rustler45 said...

"...and also more devoted to helping "the least of these."

Of course, he's a good communist -- wolf in sheep's clothing.

Anonymous said...

I just wish for once a man would not try to make a LAW out of a Womans body.Why is it,that their are No Laws on the mans body?Unfortunately there are circumstances that Abortions are nessecary.But I know it is a Horrible descision for any women to have to make.Its very phsycologically wounding.I believe the words are "Do NOT Judge,or you shall be judged".

Jacqueline O'Boomer said...

I am a lifelong Catholic, age 61. In the current presidential campaign, there is only one side of the political process I'm on - Barack Obama's. Jesus said love one another. All of the Barack Obama bashing would not be in keeping with that. Jesus said feed the hungry, help the needy and the poor - John McCain thinks those problems among Americans are psychological. Barack Obama wishes to encourage fathers and mothers to provide a safe, loving environment for their children - something that will go a long way toward keeping families together and lessening the number of unwanted teen pregnancies. Our country should stand behind the person that cares about our families and has a clear religious faith - Barack Obama has my vote in November.

sean said...

Amen, Jacqueline! And that i swhy millions of Catholics are supporting Obama.

Rustler45 said...

ANONYMOUS SAID: "Unfortunately there are circumstances that Abortions are nessecary."

There you have it. A Catholic for Obama expressing a statement against the teaching of the Church. Is that a heresy Katherine?

Milehimama said...

Totally off the Faith subject...

I wonder why Obama didn't bother to vote on the taxing obscene oil company profits? Hasn't he mentioned it in speeches? How is he going to lower gas prices (or is he?)

The Lone Ranger said...

Milehimama, he's gonna make the chickens lay golden eggs, etc.

Max said...

vajra said,
One of the interesting things @Barack ...more devoted to helping "the least of these."

Unless of course they are babies born alive after attempted abortions. In that case, "the least of these" does not apply for good ole Barack.

Sean said...

McCain revealed $225K in credit card debt, the bulk of the obligations from a pair of American Express credit cards. Another card was carrying $10K to $15K worth of debt at a stiff 25.99percent interest rate. Obama reports no outstanding credit card debt and most of his assests responsibily kept in retirement and kids' college funds.

Hey, I know I am "old school." I pay off my credit card every month. But I find McCain to be an example of fiscal irresponsibility (I know when you are with $100 million you can be a little free with the buck). You really want this guy running the economy (oh, I forgot, "the economy is not his strong point").

Rustler45 said...

SEAN SAID: "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"

and "whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine whine"

Yeah right McCain is going to get us into debt, but Obama is going to get us out of it. If you believe that I have some beachfront property you'd be interested in. There's also a replice London Bridge to go along with every sale.

Max said...

sean said,

You really want this guy running the economy (oh, I forgot, "the economy is not his strong point").


No, I don't want any guy running the economy. Obama seems to think he can. McCain is smart enough to know that business provides jobs not the government.

Obama wants to nationalize health care, when the senate just had to privitize their cafeteria because it was losing money. The government can't run a cafeteria but Obama thinks he can nationalize health care. Maybe Tony Rezco will be his health care czar.

sean said...

Max,

Actually, Obama's health care plan is very much like the privitization plan for the Senate restaurant. Have you read it?

Max said...

Sean,

I've gone to his web site and have read it.

My first problem is his play or pay for all employers. He would force business to provide health insurance based on standards set by the gov. or pay a premium to the gov. I believe it would be set at 7% to start.

He wants to establish a National Exchange a new public run insurance plan modeled on Medicare . It would dictate prices paid to medical providers.

The bottom line is the Gov. will dictate prices and eventually supply will have be rationed, like the UK and Canada.

Small businesses costs will increase and the cost of everything they produced will increase. I prefer medical savings accounts, which gives individuals the flexibility to determine their own needs and encourages the consumer to shop for the best deal.

Milehimama said...

I want to know what the "or what" is.

He requires parents to have health insurance for children. Or what?

Social services will be involved? He'll fine the already overburdened parents? Government will step in an provide it, no matter what the income is?

And how is he planning to track our children and their health insurance status? Will their right to patient privacy be removed as government follows their care?

Once again, I doubt my Obama questions will be answered, though. Mostly when I ask any question without an automatic talking point on the website, I'm ignored.

sean said...

He requires parents to have health insurance for children. Or what?

I can't imagine any responsible parent not doing what they can to provide for their childrens' health care. It would be close to abuse, like not feeding a child or not seeing that a child is educated. This seems rather basic and I am surprised anyone would view not giving a child health care as not being a matter of social interest.

Social services will be involved? He'll fine the already overburdened parents? Government will step in an provide it, no matter what the income is?

What kind of parent is going to refuse health care for thier child? Yes, if the parent cannot afford it, assistance will be provided. If they can, they pay. Letting little children go without health care is simply not an option.

And how is he planning to track our children and their health insurance status? Will their right to patient privacy be removed as government follows their care?

The medical records remain confidential.

Milehimama said...

We are not talking about not getting emergency treatment for injuries, but carrying health insurance. Do you really think NOT having health insurance = child abuse?

Health insurance and health care are very different things! Yes, parents have an obligation to procure health care for an ill child. But should the government require them to have health insurance, and what are the penalties for not having it?

Milehimama said...

And what of people whose religious philosophy forbids playing the insurance game? (Amish, for example). Will there be an option to be a "conscientious objector"?

sean said...

We are not talking about not getting emergency treatment for injuries, but carrying health insurance. Do you really think NOT having health insurance = child abuse?

Unless the parents are supermultimillionaries who can pay out of pocket any medical expense, yes I do think it is irresponsibile for a parent to willingly let a child go without health insurance.

And what of people whose religious philosophy forbids playing the insurance game? (Amish, for example). Will there be an option to be a "conscientious objector"?

Yes, the Obama plan does make allowances for the Amish.

Milehimama said...

How is it irresponsible for Average Joe to not have health insurance, but NOT irresponsible for Amish, etc. to not have health insurance?

sean said...

How is it irresponsible for Average Joe to not have health insurance, but NOT irresponsible for Amish, etc. to not have health insurance?

You think it is not irresponsible for the average American to let thier children go without health insurnace?

Milehimama said...

Sean,
I was asking YOU if you thought the Amish etc. were irresponsible for not having insurance. I already KNOW what I think.

sean said...

milehimama --

Could you share with the rest of us your thinking as to if it is responsible for average parents to let their children go without health insurance?

Milehimama said...

Sean,
Are you dodging my question, or do you not understand that I am asking what you think?

Do you think that parents that do not have insurance for their children are child abusers? What should be done to them?

Do you think that people who are philosophically opposed to insurance products are irresponsible? Should they be allowed to opt out?

Milehimama said...

And what do you mean by "average parents"? Could you please define the demographic you are talking about?

shiloh said...

Rustler45 said...

Boring.

Rustler45 said...

Yawn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


& yet you make (5) more posts, too funny & it took you (2) posts & 5 hrs. to say Boring & Yawn ... truly amazing!

take care

sean said...

milehimama --

Average parent was your term. If if you are incapable of defining your own terms, I will do so for you.

Average parent -- not so wealthy that they can pay out of pocket every imaginable medical expense their child might need.

Milehimama said...

I used Average Joe as a stand in name (like John Q. Public) meaning an American citizen.

However, you used "average parents" to refer to a group.

You define the group as people with children who are not multimillionaires. That group by definition includes those who are philosophically opposed to insurance products and those opposed to governmental intrusion. So why is it okay for those people to opt out? Why is it NOT irresponsible for them to not have insurance, but it IS irresponsible for parents without a formal theological reason to not have insurance? Does religious belief absolve one of responsibility?

And you still have not answered several questions, instead just asking me if I think it is irresponsible to not have health insurance.

I think you can be a good parent and not have health insurance. I do not think that lack of health insurance = child abuse/child neglect/endangerment. I think it's none of the State's business what kind of insurance I carry to cover injuries/illnesses unless I am using State funds (Medicaid, for example).

sean said...

I think you can be a good parent and not have health insurance. I do not think that lack of health insurance = child abuse/child neglect/endangerment.

Now we are getting somewhere. I disagree with your statement above. I don't think a good parent willingly does away with health insurance for their children. I also think darn few of people going without have any sincere philosophical objections to health insurance. The vast majority desire it.

Regina said...

milehimama,

I can't believe you let your children go without health insurance. I mean, little things can still be paid for, btu what if your child had a major illness? I think you are doing a great disservice to your children.

Milehimama said...

Ah, the ad hominem attack.

Why do you assume that I do not have health insurance?

Merely stating that most people do not oppose insurance products does not answer any of my questions.

sean said...

milehimama --

I think the previous poster just misunderstood you. You seemed so firm in defending parents who left their children without health insurance, she assumed you were one of them.

I don't see what question I left unanswered. Yes, I think that parents who willingly let their children go without health insurance are irresponsible. The potential costs of necessary health care are just too high not to have insurance.

Milehimama said...

Are parents who are philosophically opposed to insurance/government intrusion irresponsible?

What penalty should be assessed to such irresponsible parents?

And Sean, why do you assume that parents without health insurance WILLINGLY do not have health insurance?

sean said...

Milehimama --

I've worked in employee benefits and I have to say I have never once known an employee who refused insurance because of a philosophical opposition. I'm not saying such people don't exist, btu you are going to have to help me with this because it is totally outside my experience. With thousands of employees, not one had a philosophical objection.

And Sean, why do you assume that parents without health insurance WILLINGLY do not have health insurance?

That's kinda my point. Few if any people willingly go without insurance. It is usually unfortunate circumstances that deny or make it difficult for them.

Milehimama said...

Sean,
I know that traditional Mennonite communities are against insurance, as are *some* Quaker-type believers. Additionally, I personally know a few SSPXers who are opposed, and some Libertarians who would be opposed on principal to a government mandated plan.

http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm

sean said...

Milehimama --

Yes. The sectarian religious objection is limited to a subset of the same comunities that we also relieve from the obligation to serve in the military when called. It seems to me our society has already worked that issue out in regard to the draft.

So, problem solved. Libertarianism is not a religious objection and therefore is not a matter of first amendment consideration.

Ginkgo100 said...

Parents can have a philosophical objection to vaccines.

Would you say that the exception to health insurance should be like the draft, or like vaccinations? Can individuals who do not belong to organized religion, who have their "own" religion, validly object? What are the criteria?

And... again... why is it NOT irresponsible for Amish et. al., and NOT child abuse to not have insurance, but it IS for other people?

Does adhering to specific beliefs absolve one of certain responsiblities?

Milehimama said...

Sorry, "Gingko100" is me - Milehimama.

I let soemone else use my computer and forgot to double check my sign in!

sean said...

Would you say that the exception to health insurance should be like the draft, or like vaccinations? Can individuals who do not belong to organized religion, who have their "own" religion, validly object? What are the criteria?

I would say like the draft, though I know around here the schools are pretty strict about vaccinations before kids can go to school.

I do think people have a responsibility to defend their country. I'm not a pacifist and it is not something I agree with.

Libertarians are against all taxes yet they are not let off the hook on taxes like Amish are on the draft. This all seems to be a side issue in that society has settled it apart from the issue of health insurance.

Going back to the original question, yes, I beleive all kids should be insured.

Rustler45 said...

sean said...
Max, Actually, Obama's health care plan is very much like the privitization plan for the Senate restaurant. Have you read it?

Sean, we don't need to read it. He's a communist. You're a communist so why would we have to read it. Whatever it might be now will be changed to fit the plan the other Marxists want.

Where is McCarthy when we need him?

Rustler45 said...

Going back to the original question, yes, I beleive all kids should be insured.

Yeah, and we can send the NICE Police around to enforce the law.

I missed my calling. I should have been an insurance agent.

Rustler45 said...

Jacqueline O'Boomer said...
"Barack Obama wishes to encourage fathers and mothers to provide a safe, loving environment for their children -"

Yeah, and so did Bill Clinton and Adolph Hitler.