The Instigator
stylezco
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Christianity supports the health care bill

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,480 times Debate No: 11531
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (7)

 

stylezco

Pro

This is for those Christians who believe that because you are Christian you have to be against the health care bill. I don't really care much for the actual debate, you can win I don't care. I will vote for you to win.

What I care about is a good honest discussion. Traditionally, Christians are against universal health care because traditionally Christians are republican. I however believe that if a Christian is against the health care bill than that person is a hypocrite and going against the teaching of Christ. This of course presupposes Christianity is true and the Bible is true. We don't need to get into all the deep definitions unless you feel it is necessary. Good luck
mongeese

Con

Welcome back to DDO, stylezco. As you have not yet posted an argument, I guess the actual debating shall begin in Round 2. Good luck.

I also ask that people vote honestly in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
stylezco

Pro

Thanks mongeese for taking this discussion and for the welcome. I have been on Debate.org before just not in a long time. As I said, I don't care who wins and I will vote for you. Also I am not too worried about the semantics about debate. Just as long as we make arguments and counter arguments.

I guess this begins with the fact that a lot of my friends are Christians and because they are Christians they feel they have to be republican. Which I completely understand. However, this seems to carry over into the debate on health care.

The jest of my argument is this:

1. If Jesus were here, he would support universal health care. Since Christians are followers of Christ, they too should support health care.

2. Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government.

Thus if anyone is a follower of Christ, they should in fact be in support of the health care plan that was accepted by the Government. If they don't they are a hypocrite.

I now this is brief but I can expand it in future rounds as the discussion develops. Also please feel free to expand the debate as you see fit. In other words, it doesn't have to stay around these two claims. Feel free to expand the debate to , politics etc. Let me have it, have fun and remember you already get my vote.
mongeese

Con

My opponent brings up two important points. They support his argument rather well. However, their main flaw is that they are not backed up by anything. I suggest using a source (the Bible would be nice) to show where Jesus showed any inclination to support something like the health care bill.

Now, I'll make two points:

1. Jesus wasn't really into political coercion. As God, he would support the free will of the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Note that different denominations have different opinions of free will, but it is false to say that all of Christianity would be against the exercise of free will.

2. The bill does not help the poor at all. The bill requires health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions indiscriminately [1]. This means that they must raise premiums for everybody to be able to afford to insure those who will cost more to care for. This rise in premiums will turn the healthy people away from buying health care, resulting in adverse impact [2], driving health care prices higher and higher. When a healthy person suddenly becomes ill, he can apply for health insurance anyway, calling his sudden disease a pre-existing condition. The company would be forced to accept him and pay for for his health care. This would make profits for health insurance companies practically impossible in the long run. This in no way benefits the poor, the rich, or America as a whole.

With these two points, I will turn the debate over to my opponent. Remember, sources!

1. http://www.csmonitor.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
stylezco

Pro

Thanks for the previous round. I will now support my arguments with sources. I will take up the suggestion of my opponent and support the position with the Bible. For Christians the Bible is the sole source of authority. Thus it is the ultimate authority regardless of denomination.

I will first refute my opponents arguments then I will further support mine.

1. You cited a wikipedia article that speaks about both Calvinism and Arminianism. One would say Calvinism, a Christian point of view, does not support free will. Then Arminianism would say that one has free will. (I am using free will here very loosely which we can debate if we want to get into the arguments of Arminianism vs. Calvinism which is debate without adequate conclusion as scholars still debate it today. So the article you cited state a Christian point of view that both supports free will and is against it. The article is useless to support your claim that Christian's have free will and are not under political coercion. However, political coercion is not what is being debated. In fact, I agree that Jesus was not into political coercion. This does not mean that he wouldn't be in support of the bill. I say this to just show that both your sources don't support your arguments nor are they relevant. If they are, perhaps you can show me the line, paragraph that does support your argument. Also not debated is whether one has free will. Your argument is pointless… perhaps you can shed some clarity for me.

2. Second, I have to refute the statement that, "The bill does not help the poor at all." I particularly want to focus on "at all." It may be true that the bill does not help all poor, but my opponent seems to say the bill does not help any poor. First, this statement cannot be verified because the bill has yet become an active law. No one has used it yet so we can't know for sure. It is therefore an opinion and not fact. However, the plan is designed to help the poor. Using my opponents same source I found a link to a related article in the same publication that says the government would supplement and help those under the U.S. Poverty line (1). Is poverty equal to poor, I guess my opponent can debate this but then it gets to a matter of semantics. Let us agree, poverty is poor. The fact that my opponent said it wouldn't help the poor at all is just false. Also the article says nowhere that "The bill does not help the poor at all."
The fact I used his own source to find my source shows the weakness of my opponents sources. Secondly, we are not debating whether or not preexisting conditions are treated. Your conclusions are not supported by your cited source you used. Again if I am wrong then please indicate where your conclusions are supported by the source.

Now to my arguments.

1. My premise does have to do with the poor. Jesus was all about the poor. In fact he stated that in order to follow him and be a Christian, ( a follower of Christ is a Christian) we must give all we have away or sell it and give it to the poor. In fact, Christ seems to say only after we give what we have are we to follow him.

Mark 10:17-23, Luke 18:22 - More can be provide as necessary.

Jesus obviously cared for the poor and this bill supports caring for the poor. Thus Jesus would be in support.

In the same way, the health care bill does help the poor as stated by my source:

http://www.merinews.com...

This article directly refutes the argument my opponent makes that "The bill does not help the poor at all."

Because the health care helps the poor, and Jesus cares for the poor, Jesus would support the Health Care Bill.

2. As to my second argument that, "Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government. – my opponent didn't attack accept to say that I did not have adequate sources. One source Acts 2:45. Source now provided. Since he provided no argument – argument should flow through… of course I don't care if you respond to this later.

Where my opponent attacks lack of sources on my part, I have now provided them, and now show where my opponent's sources are very inadequate and attack them directly. I look forward to your rebuttal and perhaps some counter arguments.

________

(1) http://www.csmonitor.com...
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. Now, to continue:

1. I will forfeit the notion that Christianity's stance on free will can help me in this debate.

2. I will challenge the idea that the U.S. poverty line is an adequate measure of whether or not a family is "poor." Poor is most basically defined as "lacking material possessions" [1]. However, to be considered "impoverished," one must make less than $10,000 per year [2]. $10,000 is a considerable amount of money, which can buy a considerable number of things. In fact, 90% of the people in 1900 in America lived under the poverty line of today [3]. Had we not increased our standards, we'd have no poverty.
Additionally, helping the poor through government subsidization is hardly as beneficial as it sounds. As the poor are subsidized, being poor is encouraged, so there is less incentive to work harder. This leads to a decrease in the overall standard of living and the overall GDP.

1. My opponent is correct in that Jesus supported charity donation to the poor. However, if He were in support of forcing people to pay taxes to support the bill, he would have forced people to do so Himself. He is, after all, omnipotent. He could have forced every rich man in the world to empty their pockets, similar to what this health care bill would do now. However, He didn't. If He would support Himself redistributing the wealth of the world, there's no way He'd support Washington doing the very same thing.

As for the article that claims that the poor will be helped, it really doesn't support itself with facts. It claims that the poor will be insured, but it doesn't say HOW. This is a key problem that needs to be answered before the discussion can move on.

I do believe that this response covers Point 2 as well. Good luck.

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.irp.wisc.edu...
3. "Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science", Charles Wheelan
Debate Round No. 3
stylezco

Pro

Thanks for my opponent for continuing this debate.

Opponent arguments –

1. You drop the free will argument but that is ok because like you said it was irrelevant.

2. I want to first divide this argument into two parts for clarity.

1a – Definitions) In my previous round I used the word "poor." I didn't define the word poor however, my opponent does quoting Merriam Webster Dictionary. My opponent however selectively choose only the 1st half of the first definition which says: "lacking material possessions". There are other definitions that are given. But I want to say this – Poor is poor and this definition is fine. Let us not get caught up arguing about definitions. We know what it means to be poor, or impoverished just like you know what it means to be "rich," which you didn't define in your rebuttal to my first argument, I might add. You didn't define it because you know what it means and I think we can be agreed that there are poor people and rich people.

Let me suggest that arguing over definitions is not the point of the debate. We can use poor, impoverished, what ever. Thanks for providing a definition for the word, "impoverished," however, I don't think 2000 years (or about) Jesus would have used the provided definition especially in regards to the U.S. poverty line.

Shouldn't we consider what Jesus would have considered poor or impoverished. I use the term poor because it is what is used in the Bible. The Bible doesn't seem to define the word poor, however it uses it in contrast to "rich." As in the previous citation, (Mark 10:17-23) a rich man has to sell all he has and give it to the poor. Let me suggest that, being poor is being less fortunate than rich. Either way the poor are to give to the rich. (Let me add, though it will be more difficult, I will attempt to define "poor" using the Bible if it is something that we cannot get past.)

1b- the argument) The argument you state is that "helping the poor through government subsidization is hardly as beneficial as it sounds. As the poor are subsidized, being poor is encouraged, so there is less incentive to work harder. This leads to a decrease in the overall standard of living and the overall GDP."

My rebuttal – This statement is very generic. Let me propose a way that a government subsidization is beneficial. When the government provides scholarships. This is a subsidization that helps those who cannot afford it. For example, the pell grant is a government "subsidy" that helps students who can't afford college to go to school. [1] This helps the GDP because they get a degree and become functioning members of society. Your general conclusion is not good. By receiving the pell grant, "being poor" is not encouraged and there isn't less incentive to work harder, in fact it is the opposite. Since I have shown through my opponents own logic that this argument is faulty, it should be dropped.

Secondly, you didn't support your claim with any sources. It is therefore a presentation of a logical statement. The logic is flawed. By the way, if you are going to ask me to provide sources, you should too.

Thirdly, this in no way has anything to do with the debate that Jesus would be in support of the Health Care Plan. It is therefore irrelevant.

Now to the arguments of mine that you rebutted.

1. Jesus did in fact tell people to pay taxes. (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17) In this instance, Jesus was asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Roman Government. He said that it was. Jesus said pay the government what's the government's. Our money belongs to the government (it has USA on it) and therefore we are to give the USA what is the USA's. Jesus said to pay taxes.

Jesus is omnipotent, at times ( I say this because Jesus gave up some of his divine nature including some omnipotence while incarnated on earth. He now reigns in heaven and is now once again omnipotent ). However, he does not use his omnipotence to force anything on anyone. Jesus doesn't force people to love him so why would he force people to pay taxes. To assume that just because Jesus doesn't force people to pay taxes he doesn't really "support" the distribution of wealth is faulty logic. Because an omnipotent being chooses not to exercise his power doesn't mean he doesn't support something.

Secondly, where are your sources that support his claim that Jesus would have forced people to pay taxes if he was in support of the distribution of wealth? You have no sources that claim this but your own imagination.

Next you attack my sources source because it doesn't have facts. I am sorry if you cannot find where in the article it says that it helps the poor. But here is the quote to help you: "This is a very important bill for the poor people of United States as after more than a hundred years people, who are struggling because of poverty will get health coverage."

The bill will provide health coverage. That is a fact! You miss-represent me and the source. The burden is on you to show if this article's statements facts are false. Where is your source that shows that the Bill does not provide health care coverage for the poor?

My source does provide a fact that you have either not read or failed to recognize.

You say: The article "claims that the poor will be insured, but it doesn't say HOW. This is a key problem that needs to be answered before the discussion can move on."

Since you say you want to know "how" the bill insures the poor then read my second source for a detailed explanation [2].

Now we can move on.

My opponents dropped arguments

1. Where are your sources that say it doesn't help the poor. I showed last round how your sources did not support your argument but you have failed to mention it so it should be considered dropped.

2. The "pre-existing conditions argument" that I refuted was not addressed again, therefore dropped.

3. In round 2 my second contention: "Jesus would also support social programs as in the health care plan proposed by the government" has never been touched so therefore my opponent drops this argument.

4. My opponent has failed to show anywhere in the teachings of Christ or in the Bible where Jesus would not be in support of the concepts of the health care bill. Again, as already stated, shouldn't the Bible, which is the final authority for followers of Christ, be used?

[1] http://www2.ed.gov...
[2] http://www.govtrack.us...

Let me encourage that this debate become more generalized. The goal was to simply say that as a follower of Christ, one should support the health care bill based on the teachings of Christ. Also opponents of the Healthcare debate seem to state that it is socialism… maybe we could head that direction but of course that is up to you.
mongeese

Con

I would also like to thank my opponent for continuing to debate.

2. My opponent claims that to be poor means to be less fortunate than the rich. However, to be rich would have to mean to be more fortunate than the poor. Let's take the scenario of everybody making $40,000 per year. Everybody, by these standards, would be average. However, if one man ends up with a salary of $100,000 by means of new technology, and through trickle-down economics, everybody else also benefits, with salaries of $50,000 dollars, these standards would call the people poor, even though they are richer than they once were. This logically doesn't make sense at all.

1b. My opponent gives an example of beneficial government subsidization: scholarships. However, health care is not scholarships. Scholarships are rewarded based on hard work and effort; health care is not. If my opponent believes that the logic that makes scholarships beneficial can be extended to health care, why not use health care as the example itself? I have exposed my opponent's flawed logic, and defended my own logic to provide the base for this argument.

My opponent deems this argument irrelevant. However, if the health care plan hurts the poor, then there's no way Jesus would ever support it.

1. Jesus may have told people to pay their taxes; however, that doesn't men that he would support Caesar hiking the tax rate up. A man who believes that people should pay taxes does not by extension believe that government may do whatever it likes. Such is a non sequitor.

If my opponent wishes to point to USA being on the dollar as ownership of the money by the government, if the people are to be expected to pay their taxes, the government should uphold its own end of the bargain by following the constitution. However, the health care bill is not constitutional at all. The Constitution [1] authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce, such as health care. Would Jesus really support a government breaking its own laws?

I agree with my opponent that Jesus supported the distribution of wealth; however, this is very different from supporting forcing people to redistribute their own wealth. I believe in giving to the poor; however, I do not believe that it is the government's job to force people to do so.

My opponent agrees that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. However, I ask again, if Jesus didn't support Himself forcing other people into doing things, why would He support a fallible, corruptable, mismanaged government to do it instead?

I already saw where the source claims that the poor will get health care. However, as I already stated, it doesn't say HOW. My opponent is misprepresenting what I said. I have already asked how this would occur, as it is a necessary step to understand why it isn't as great as it appears. My opponent's source only says, "An invalid bill ID was specified in the URL." The page provides no detailed explanations of anything.

To summarize:

1. I have explained why subsidizing the poor hurts everybody overall. My opponent claims that the bill helps the poor, but is rather vague in doing so, leaving no real clarity for anybody to support.

2. My opponent said nothing against my explanation as to why the bill requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions will lead to America's collapse. It should not be considered dropped until he puts forward an actual argument against it.

3. "I do believe that this response covers Point 2 as well." I used one argument that I believed covered both points.

4. While the Bible clearly supports voluntary charity to the poor, nothing in it suggests that Jesus would force people to redistribute their own wealth.

Good luck in the final round.

1. http://www.usconstitution.net...
Debate Round No. 4
stylezco

Pro

Since I have only 8,000 characters to write I will try to hit a few major points and summarize.

Opponents Claims of round 4 - 1. Con says: "My opponent claims that to be poor means to be less fortunate than the rich. However, to be rich would have to mean to be more fortunate than the poor" Then states an example.

Response: Your statement and example is so flawed. A.) The second sentence is essentially a restatement of sentence 1 except opposite and your example made no sense.

2a. "My opponent gives an example of beneficial government subsidization: scholarships. However, health care is not scholarships."

Response: Never claimed health care was a scholarship. I claimed that a government scholarship is an example of a government subsidy. I showed an example how this claim is not true using the government subsidy also called a scholarship.

2b. "Scholarships are rewarded based on hard work and effort;"

Response: A.) This is not true for all scholarships. A requirement for most scholarships is not being able to afford the tuition for schools. I have been denied plenty of scholarships because I made two much money. B.) Irrelevant to my contentions.

2c. "If my opponent believes that the logic that makes scholarships beneficial can be extended to health care, why not use health care as the example itself?

Response: I will answer your question. Thanks for the set up! A.) The government pays a subsidy for those who can't afford health care (the poor). They get treated and get better. They rejoin the work force and benefit all society.

2d. "if the health care plan hurts the poor, then there's no way Jesus would ever support it."

My Response: A.) You haven't ever showed how the health care plan hurts the poor. B) This is a new argument. C.)Where is your support.

3. "Jesus may have told people to pay their taxes; however, that doesn't men that he would support Caesar hiking the tax rate up. A man who believes that people should pay taxes does not by extension believe that government may do whatever it likes."

My Response: A.) You already claimed that Jesus would have to force them. Now all of a sudden you agree that he does support people paying taxes. B.) Then you add a new claim and argument about Caesar raising taxes. C.) It is evident that you have not read the Bible or you would know that it tells believers that we must submit to the authorities that government. (Romans 13:1) Jesus submitted to the Roman Government as they crucified him on the cross. Therefore he would submit to the authority of the government whether it meant raising taxes or not.

3b. "If my opponent wishes to point to USA … …The Constitution [1] authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce, such as health care. Would Jesus really support a government breaking its own laws?"

My Response: A.) By pointing out that the USA was on the dollar I was simply making an analogy of what Christ said in the Bible. Not my own argument. B.)You claim that the government should uphold its end of the bargain by following the constitution is a.) irrelevant to the contentions I have provided. b.) Doesn't the government have the right to make laws? The health care bill is a law. The supreme court, since they have not ruled against it would seem to show that the Bill is constitutional. It seems the government disagrees with you.

4. "My opponent agrees that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. However, I ask again, if Jesus didn't support Himself forcing other people into doing things, why would He support a fallible, corruptable, mismanaged government to do it instead?"

Response: A) You are very tricky… you didn't "agree" with me that Jesus does not force anybody to do anything. You disagreed in round three. You actually said "if He were in support of forcing people to pay taxes to support the bill, he would have forced people to do so Himself. He is, after all, omnipotent." B) In the second sentence of your claim above you say "I ask again"? You never asked a first time. C.) He can support the Health Care Plan without supporting the government.

6. "I already saw where the source claims that the poor will get health care. However, as I already stated, it doesn't say HOW."

My Response: It is unfortunate that my link did not work. So here is how. READ THE HEALTH CARE PLAN! I am not going to do your homework for you. The Bill clearly lays out how the bill will help the poor. Since you are in this debate I assume you know at least briefly what it says.

Summary:

Con says: 1. I have explained why subsidizing the poor hurts everybody overall. My opponent claims that the bill helps the poor, but is rather vague in doing so, leaving no real clarity for anybody to support.

My Response: I have debated this head on. Vague? I provided a source that stated the Bill helps the poor. I have evidence in the form of an article. I even quoted it in my argument. It is a fact! How is that vague? I asked you to show how it doesn't help the poor which you failed to do. Now you set here and act like you responded to my challenge.

2. My opponent said nothing against my explanation as to why the bill requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions will lead to America's collapse. It should not be considered dropped until he puts forward an actual argument against it.

My Response: A.) I have already debated this in round 3 and I quote "we are not debating whether or not preexisting conditions are treated. Your conclusions are not supported by your cited source you used. Again if I am wrong then please indicate where your conclusions are supported by the source." You still haven't provided sources to back up your conclusions. You did not respond to this in round 3. It is therefore dropped. If you can't even look back in the debate and see that I have already debated this subject then you are either very forgetful or trying intentionally to say something that is not true. B.) You also never made the claim that "pre-existing conditions would lead to America's collapse." This is again a new argument.

3. "I do believe that this response covers Point 2 as well." I used one argument that I believed covered both points.

My Response: You need to explain how you have covered this point. It is never enough to use a blanket statement to argue a point without explanation. Point two is completely different. You are either lazy or do not have the evidence. In your own words you need to show "HOW". This is very elusive not at all adequate for debate.

4. While the Bible clearly supports voluntary charity to the poor, nothing in it suggests that Jesus would force people to redistribute their own wealth.

My Response: Again, this is irrelevant. Jesus doesn't have to force anybody to do anything in order to be in support of the health care. Secondly, The Bible clearly supports distribution of wealth. Followers of Christ are not forced to give to the needy (distribute wealth) they do it because they follow Christ. I have already provided Bible verses to support this in round 3, but here they are again. Acts 2:45.

In summary, I have contested claim by claim of my opponent. My opponent has dropped arguments and given little support for his claims. He has tried to focus on definitions to draw attention away from the debate. He has showed little knowledge about being who the character of Jesus and what the Bible represents. Though accepting the debate was the presupposition that he is a Christian. Shows little knowledge of basic components of the health care bill by continually asking "How" the bill will help the poor when the Bill itself lays out the plan.

Thank you my opponent for this debate. Please note that any aggressive tone toward my opponent is not meant to be personal. I am sure my opponent is a fine person and of great character.
mongeese

Con

I would like to first thank stylezco for this debate. It has been good. I will respond to my opponent's points using the same numbering system that he did.

1. My opponent claims that my statements are flawed. However, he does not support this statement in any way whatsoever.

2b. A) The government does not give scholarships for the worst in class; they award scholarships to promising students who cannot afford tuition. The students then put forward hard work and effort, and for this, they are rewarded. Scholarships provide nothing for the future without hard work and effort. B) This key difference between scholarships and health care makes arguing supporting scholarships irrelevant to health care.

2c. My opponent assumes that if the government gives the poor health care, they will be treated and get better. However, this is hardly the case, given the lowering of quality in health care that comes out of government intervention [1].

2d. A) I gave an entire logical argument as to how the mandate not to discriminate against pre-existing conditions would lead to rising health care costs, lower demand of health care, and ultimately, the collapse of the health care system in America, hurting the rich and the poor. B) This was quite a few rounds ago. C) Logic and one article support my claims.

3. A) Supporting paying your taxes is NOT synonymous with forcing people to pay taxes. B) New claims are allowed in Round 4, and must still be responded to. C) That quote applied to the Roman government, claimed to be established by God. However, the American government, with its church and state, was not an establishment by God. Plus, just because Jesus would support obeying government, doesn't mean that he supports the government abusing this power however they please.

3b. A) Okay, but the analogy still works. B) a) My opponent calls my claim against the government irrelevant without reasoning. b) My opponent makes a fallacious appeal to authority. The federal government, according to the constitution, has the authority to pass laws to do a number of things, but by the 10th amendment, it lacks certain powers, including the regulation of intrastate trade such as health care. The Supreme Court has not ruled on it yet, but may rule on it in the future as unconstitutional, but besides, it is a biased authority in favor of larger government, as government generally tries to get larger over time.

4. A) I did agree that Jesus does not force people to do anything. B) From Round 3: "As for the article that claims that the poor will be helped, it really doesn't support itself with facts. It claims that the poor will be insured, but it doesn't say HOW. This is a key problem that needs to be answered before the discussion can move on." C) No, as the Health Care Plan requires government enforcement.

5 seems to be missing for some reason.

6. I am expected to read 1,990 pages to find out something that I don't even think exists? This is a rather ridiculous burden for CON. My opponent claims that the bill clearly lays things out, but it is in law lingo, which I cannot understand properly. My opponent refuses to clarify his own statement and unfairly pushes the burden away from him.

To counter my opponent's summary:

1. My opponent's source is vague in that it has no support. He claims that the statement's presence in an article makes it fact, but in that case, reptilians rule the world [2].

2. A) I merely quoted that pre-existing conditions may not be discriminated against, then used a logical argument to link it to the collapse of America. B) As my opponent seems to have forgotten it, here it is again, from Round 2: "The bill requires health insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions indiscriminately [2:1]. This means that they must raise premiums for everybody to be able to afford to insure those who will cost more to care for. This rise in premiums will turn the healthy people away from buying health care, resulting in adverse impact [2:2], driving health care prices higher and higher. When a healthy person suddenly becomes ill, he can apply for health insurance anyway, calling his sudden disease a pre-existing condition. The company would be forced to accept him and pay for for his health care. This would make profits for health insurance companies practically impossible in the long run."

3. My opponent's two main points are actually rather similar, almost the same. One is that Jesus would support universal health care, and the other is that he would support social programs such as universal health care. If one reads my response to Point 1, but treats it as a response to Point 2, nothing would be amiss whatsoever.

3. As the health care bill forces people to do things, Jesus would not support giving the government the authority to do so. My opponent agrees that Christians are not forced to give to the needy. However, given this, wouldn't it be illogical for Jesus to want to force everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, into the redistribution of wealth?

Ironically, my opponent's final summary, all but the last two lines, could more easily be applied to my opponent than to myself. As for those last two sentences, I have no clue how the bill helps the poor because the bill is unnecessarily complicated and lengthy, and nobody (not even my opponent, apparently) has the capability to explain its key functions.

In conclusion, the health care bill goes against Jesus' lack of the use of force, any principle of helping the poor, and the Constitution itself. Christianity does not support the health care bill. Vote CON.

Again, thank you, stylezco, and may you enjoy your future debates on DDO.

1. http://www.patientpowernow.org...
2. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
Voltar143, perhaps you would like to back up your statement on how I don't understand the Bible. What did I say that was contrary? Also, Jesus says nothing about abortion... though he does speak against murder. Would you mind showing me where the Bible says that Jesus does not support "abortion?" Also, the bill does NOT include any abortion statement. You are as ignorant as your comment suggests.

Congrats to mongeese for winning the debate.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
May or may not. Christians has freedom to choose or not to choose. Support or not to support. If government forces you to take the bill then there isnt much a choice.

Jesus does not support abortion which is included in todays proposed bill, he is more likely upset with it than happy.

The instigator needs to read more and understand the Bible to be more competent mixing Jesus with any issues.
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
1. Individuals choosing to help out the poor.
2. Government mandated support of the poor regardless of whether people want to help them or not.

The issue of whether the health care bill will help the poor or not is irrelevant. If you don't understand enough about Jesus' teachings to know which of the above two statements His teachings apply to, you need to read your Bible more.
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
good point micktravis... however the Bible shows that the majority doesn't always know what is best. But I do believe socialized medicine doesn't necessarily mean poorer quality. We have a socialized military and it is probably the best in the world. Also people who complain that socialized medicine means poorer quality are elitest. If this premise is true, they would whether have the best health care only for those who can afford it over mediocre health care available for everyone.
Posted by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
I believe this argument fails to take into account the vast majority of Christians in the world who live outside the United States. Since the US is the only world power without socialized medicine, it is clear that Christians (except the minority within the US) favor nationalized medicine.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I think it comes down to the difference between voluntary charity and government redistribution of wealth. The ideas of "paying taxes" and the "the government owns the money" are inadequate. "Paying taxes" is for justly-government-related expenses, not authoritarian rule. The government doesn't own the money. Con might have done something with Christian prohibitions on theft.
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
Thanks for the debate... as promised here are my votes.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
If JC was in the US today, I think He'd quickly leave and go to the places where He'd truly be needed: Africa, Asia, etc. I think the US is, in all likelihood, the LAST place where He'd need to be or would be.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Ninja_Tru,
"Pro-Abosrtion," just like in ALL other 'pro' positions, doesn't mean everyone is forced to get an abortion. Case in point: in the pro-gambling vs anti-gambling movements, the pro-gambler position isn't one in which it is believed that ALL people MUST gamble. It means that there is a choice: to gamble or not to gamble, so stop drinking the Koolaid.

The pro-abortion movement 'changed' its name to pro-choice a long time ago because it has a better 'ring' to it. However, calling yourself pro-choice doesn't really identify the platform with anything, as all pro-whatever are in favor of a choice. The name does have a nice 'guilt free' feel to it though.

On the other hand, one can say that the anti-abortion camp changed their name to pro-life for similar reasons: marketing. This can also be misleading because a person who is 'pro-choice' can in essence also be 'pro-life': they may choose never to abort. If both sides really want to be honest, they should keep the names the way they were originally.

Jesus vs Obama's Health Care (OHC):
JC was clearly in favor of helping the poor & downtrodden; however, I don't think that now-a-days there are very many people in the US that would fit what He would consider poor & downtrodden. Matter of fact, I think most people in the current Welfare & Medicaid programs would also not fit that bill either. Regardless, it remains to be shown that OHC will actually help the so called poor or HOW it would.

Also, JC didn't really concern Himself with politics and never really gave His 'stamp of approval' to any political ideology. When He said "Render unto Caesar..." it was in the context in which 'they' were trying to FORCE him to publicly take a political stance; however, He cleverly avoided this with his answer. And as mongeese pointed it out, His reply is NOT an endorsement of political policies and it does not follow that he thus would endorse OHC.
Posted by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
Thanks Railsguardian... what you are saying is exactly my inspiration for this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by micktravis 7 years ago
micktravis
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by stylezco 7 years ago
stylezco
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
stylezcomongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00