Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[wynnejj]

Which tax did Jesus pay? There was no Roman income tax, and Christ owned no real property.

The question itself was a trap setup by the Pharisees. If Jesus said “Yes”, tribute was acceptable, he would have been denounced as in favor of the Roman occupation. If he had said “No”, he would have been reported to the Romans.

Christ was pointing out that all belongs to God, and Ceasar’s portion is nothing. Therefore, he is rendered nothing.

Money is the medium of exchange that man puts on temporal goods. The fact that the coin was minted by Caesar suggests a contract with the government for the using that medium of exchange. Render unto Caesar seems to be an affirmation of the right to tax in keeping with the social contract that citizens make with government. As with “Honor your father & mother”, this does not preclude our higher allegiance to God.

 

[stevegravy]

From what I can tell, He paid a tax just for existing!

I congratulate you. You have now discerned our relationship to the federal government. It is the same relationship as a Judean to Rome thanks to Roberts Court order.

 

[seekerz]

Government dictates that’s what. A doctor does not get “market price” for his services. He gets what Medicare or Medicaid allows. His only choice is to refuse to take those patients and many do. OTOH while you may ascribe only selfish motives to doctors, most of them try to take some indigent patients and accept some Medicare/Medicaid patients. But again as this pool of patients increases, as the mandates for specific care at no reimbursement increases, there will be fewer and fewer doctors willing to accept them.

So the result is less access, less care, more misery for the American people. Is this what you want?

Lisa

So much hyperbole, I don’t know where to begin. Some of the people nearest and dearest to me are health professionals, including a few doctors. I understand what’s what.

My question is, with the economic turmoil that has touched every aspect of life and every socioeconomic class these last few years, why would doctors’ incomes be immune to a drop?

Personal I think it is scare-mongering and on the borderline of ethics to try scaring people with the ‘you won’t get care if our reimbursement falls’ line AND it does not by any means represent the stance of all doctors.

I also would love for you to clarify what “mandates for specific care at no reimbursement” means.

 

[austenbosten]

Money is the medium of exchange that man puts on temporal goods. The fact that the coin was minted by Caesar suggests a contract with the government for the using that medium of exchange. Render unto Caesar seems to be an affirmation of the right to tax in keeping with the social contract that citizens make with government. As with “Honor your father & mother”, this does not preclude our higher allegiance to God.

And what social contract did the Israelites made with the Romans? As far as I and history is concerned the Romans conquered them and imposed a tax on them. The Israelites had no say in the social contract and therefore it is bunk.

 

[PaulinVA]

I have nothing against such docs either: but, as the economics gurus around here like to tell me, the market will support what it will support and right now Medicare/Medicaid gets to decide what it is or is not willing to pay…Isn’t that how all markets work? The one controlling the wallet decides at what price to buy or to reject? That’s what my friends around her taught me…What makes the income of a doctor immune from market forces?

Market Forces? Market Forces? Market Forces are telling us that the doctors are not accepting what the government is offering. It is having a negative affect on the overall spending on health care.

Right now, the government is opening his wallet and saying, “Here, this is for that office visit.” The doctor is saying, “Never Mind. And, don’t send any more of your patients here.” Market forces would dictate that the government would offer more to increase the pool of docs taking their payments. Instead, they continue to lower the reimbursement rates. Truly stupid.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Money is the medium of exchange that man puts on temporal goods. The fact that the coin was minted by Caesar suggests a contract with the government for the using that medium of exchange. Render unto Caesar seems to be an affirmation of the right to tax in keeping with the social contract that citizens make with government. As with “Honor your father & mother”, this does not preclude our higher allegiance to God.

This article is the most complete and historically accurate rendering of the “Render unto Caesar” passage I have ever read. Jesus is not endorsing the payment of taxes. The Pharisees set a trap for Christ and Christ trips their ambush and makes them all look stupid, by couching the counter argument in terms of loyalty to God.

lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html

 

[seekerz]

Yet the Pharisees still accused him of not wanting to pay taxes.

usccb.org/bible/luke/23/

I don’t think the argument is that one should pay NO taxes, but where does one draw the line on what is just?

ETA, and JPII did give us his feelings on overspending and the “Social Assistance State”:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

We all know the truth value of the Pharisees’ accusations, so it’s fair to assume from what we have just discussed, that Jesus was not a tax evader.

I think there is a valid conversation to be had over what is a just level of taxation. Our own Church has a strong tradition of concern with justice and in particular, with just governance.

The curious thing I have discovered in my conversations on this forum though, is that there are some who seriously view opposition to the very idea of taxation as compatible with our faith.

P.S. If you doubt that last part, read the post above mine…

 

[stevegravy]

And what social contract did the Israelites made with the Romans? As far as I and history is concerned the Romans conquered them and imposed a tax on them. The Israelites had no say in the social contract and therefore it is bunk.

Their social contract was to hang on a cross or be driven into exile as slaves if they didn’t like the empire. That was their social contract.

 

[wynnejj]

And what social contract did the Israelites made with the Romans? As far as I and history is concerned the Romans conquered them and imposed a tax on them. The Israelites had no say in the social contract and therefore it is bunk.

What social contract did the Confederates make with the Unionists? Counter-bunk.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Kind of makes Social Security immoral doesn’t? That program has caused more laziness among the able bodied than all other welfare programs combined.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Healthcare plans are available for as low as $60/month.

Let’s see the government beat that.

 

[seekerz]

I congratulate you. You have now discerned our relationship to the federal government. It is the same relationship as a Judean to Rome thanks to Roberts Court order.

Nevertheless, He paid it.

 

[seekerz]

Healthcare plans are available for as low as $60/month.

Let’s see the government beat that.

When did those plans come about and what do they offer?

 

[LisaA]

So much hyperbole, I don’t know where to begin. Some of the people nearest and dearest to me are health professionals, including a few doctors. I understand what’s what.

My question is, with the economic turmoil that has touched every aspect of life and every socioeconomic class these last few years, why would doctors’ incomes be immune to a drop?

Personal I think it is scare-mongering and on the borderline of ethics to try scaring people with the ‘you won’t get care if our reimbursement falls’ line AND it does not by any means represent the stance of all doctors.

I also would love for you to clarify what “mandates for specific care at no reimbursement” means.

seekerz perhaps you came late to the party but doctors reimbursement has been dropping since the 1980s, pretty dramatically at that. In the meantime though the cost of becoming a doctor, the cost of practicing, have all increased. One of the biggest culprits is again the federal government demanding a certain type of medical record which sounds like a great idea until you realize the downside including massive costs for computers, software, training etc.

Again with Obamacare there will be more people on the low paying government plans. Have you tried to find a doctor for a Medicare or Medicaid patient lately? Most will not take any new patients with these insurance plans. Oh and the rules are such that if someone could PAY the difference between what the doc charges and Medicare pays he or she is NOT allowed to pay it! IOW another provision that works to make reimbursement lower.

You might think it is simply scaremongering to say there will be fewer doctors but it is absolutely true. The residencies that used to be fought over can’t be filled. More doctors are retiring than coming on and with the implementation of Obamacare there will be more who retire or cut back.

The mandates for preventative care such as CONTRACEPTION must be provided at no cost…oh and the usual suspects mammograms, paps, etc.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What social contract did the Confederates make with the Unionists? Counter-bunk.

The one that the Unionists imposed on them at the end of a bayonet.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Nevertheless, He paid it.

Nevertheless, he ordered Peter to go to the water and catch a fish and the tribute money was in its mouth. He didn’t pay the tribute out of his own pocket. Try doing that to the IRS.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why do the signs in the federal parks say “Don’t feed the Animals”?

Because the feds want them on food stamps too?

 

[seekerz]

Market forces would dictate that the government would offer more to increase the pool of docs taking their payments. Instead, they continue to lower the reimbursement rates. Truly stupid.

What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care, but people with insurance must be protected at whatever cost is demanded? The only word I can think of for that scenario, is schizophrenic.

 

[seekerz]

Nevertheless, he ordered Peter to go to the water and catch a fish and the tribute money was in its mouth. He didn’t pay the tribute out of his own pocket. Try doing that to the IRS.

That was His playful side showing. I advise trying it sometime, it works wonders for one’s disposition.

Regardless, He paid the tax - that’s the salient point. He would not cooperate with immorality.

 

[PaulinVA]

What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care, but people with insurance must be protected at whatever cost is demanded? The only word I can think of for that scenario, is schizophrenic.

I think your post is responding to something else, because it has nothing to do with what I said.

Oh, wait, you are agreeing with me that the government should be paying for poor-people’s care at the going rate, not some some artificially-low rate. Great! Welcome on board!