[Special thanks to The Engage Family Blog]

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

By Chuck Colson:

If you appreciate the raw, naked use of governmental power, then you have a new hero on Capitol Hill-Senator Max Baucus.

Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, has crafted a health care reform bill that would cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage, an extremely popular program that allows seniors to get additional coverage for things like hearing aids and vision care-things not covered in basic Medicare.

So it’s not surprising that the private insurance company Humana, which offers Medicare Advantage, would send a letter to its customers warning them of the cut.

What is surprising-actually shocking-was the reaction of Senator Baucus. The Wall Street Journal reports that the infuriated Senator “complained to the [Federal] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was ‘misleading and confusing’ and told the company it has opened an official probe” into the letter’s legality.

The only problem is that the letter wasn’t misleading. As National Public Radio reported, “There’s no denying that folks enrolled in Medicare Advantage would see reductions under the proposals…Humana does seem to have a point.”

And earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office told Senator Baucus’s committee that the proposed cuts would result in “lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.”

So it seems that a private insurer doesn’t have to mislead its clients to get investigated by a federal agency. All it has to do torque off a powerful senator.

To read the rest of the article, go here.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

The following is a link to 9 posts that are a part of an ongoing series by a dear friend of mine, Steve Halbrook of Sovereign Foundations on “The Bible Opposes Socialism.” 

For a link to every post, go here.  In the meantime, here are some snippets from his posts:

The Bible’s civil code (in the Older Testament) does not authorize rulers to redistribute wealth. While helping the poor is commanded, none of the laws regarding helping the poor are backed by a criminal sanction (Part 1)

Since socialism confiscates the wealth of—and thereby punishes—the rich in order to enrich the poor, socialism breaks the Bible’s commands against partiality:

“nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.” (Exodus 23:3)

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15) (Part 2)

The free market system (capitalism) is based on a voluntary, willful means of exchange between both parties.   But socialism is based on a coerced means of exchange, backed by the threat of violence—contrary to what we call “The Golden Rule” (Part 9)

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

The following is an article – How Far Does my Allegiance Go? – by Jon Isaak, Professor of New Testament at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary.

While Paul never imagined a situation like ours where government is “we” instead of “them,” his vision is still accessible and relevant to us today.

A closer reading reveals more about our relationship to government than we often take away from this passage. With a little thought and some imagination, we can place our contemporary faith community within the vision articulated by Paul—even though it was powers faithful rebellious humanity God humanity elected officials God ?  Written in a particular time and situation far removed from us. This will go a long way toward helping us chart our own political responsibility.

Four ideals for Christian political responsibility can be drawn from these seven verses.

1. Qualified endorsement of government

2. Exercise good judgment

3. Under government, but not absolutely

4. Lethal force not acceptable (Rabbit Trail: This last point made – pacifism – by Isaak is one that I’ve been struggling with since May of last year.  I’ve had the opportunity to read articles and books on this subject, but I’ve not come to a conclusion; and perhaps I never will?  At the moment I do lean heavily towards the responsibility of bearing arms for the government; however, I do not see the right to bear arms against the government as a viable option.  Contradictory?  Perhaps.  Remind me to share my thoughts for and against pacifism later).

Read the entire article here.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Pre-em-i-nence by E-mail or RSS.