Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009
Universal health care is a moral imperative according to Jesus Christ, who commanded us to "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Jesus explained that "your neighbor might even be a foreigner with a different religion” as in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).
Good Christians in America need to rise up to this challenge by Jesus and demand a "public option", such as Medicare for all Americans.
We must pay our fair share for this "Ameri-Care", just as the Good Samaritan paid the innkeeper for his services.
-Lindsay D. Holliday
Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009Help neighbor directly
I agree with Lindsay Holliday on preserving the Forest Hill Road forest and neighborhood, but not with his reference to Jesus in his letter of Oct. 14. Yes, Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as thyself," but does that require a "middle man" such as Big Government or Big Insurance? The Good Samaritan did not call on government or insurance to help his neighbor, but did so directly.
We Christians (and good Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) often insulate ourselves from those of different races or economic classes (which Jesus did not). Thus, we "default" to government and insurance companies to help our neighbor instead, paying unnecessary taxes and steep premiums.
-David B. Conner
The role of public option
No one should suffer or die simply because they do not have the money to pay for medical care. Do not believe that you can get the care for yourself or a loved one and go bankrupt on the bills later. That is not always a possibility, and should never be necessary. No one is guaranteed that they will never be in a position of need. More people should speak out as Lindsay Holliday did. Thanks, Lindsay. Jesus also said, "Love one another as I have loved you." We will find it impossible to love one another as much as Jesus loved us.
He was perfect; we are far from perfect. Still, can't we love each other enough to pay a little more money if necessary?
Reform without a public option will never work. We are already being told how much insurance premiums will increase. If you have the choice of a public option, they are not likely to increase at all.
Presently, everyone who earns less than $106,800 a year pays a flat (OASDI) tax of 6.20 percent on all of it. If you are fortunate enough to earn more, even millions more, you still do not have to pay this tax on anything above the $106,800. Many wealthy people do not mind paying more in taxes so that everyone can be covered. Of course, some of the wealthy do mind, probably most of those who took millions in bonuses when you and I bailed them out. Is it not a form of discrimination for some people to have to pay this tax on all of their earnings and others to pay it on only a small percentage of their earnings? Years ago, we paid a luxury tax on items such as perfume, jewelry, furs, etc. Why not reinstate this luxury tax?
Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009http://www.macon.com/209/story/885310.html
Misusing the Bible
One of the things the political left has accused the Christian right/religious right of doing is misquoting the Bible for their own purposes, but it seems as if the left has little problem doing the same thing. One example is the recent letter by Lindsay Holliday of Macon.
Holliday used the parable of the Good Samaritan as scripture to argue why Christians should support the public option in President Obama's health-care plan.
What he and others have yet to produce are any words from Jesus saying that government should force anyone to spend their money on someone else for anything. Taking someone's money by force (be it a robber or government program) and giving it to someone else, regardless of the reason, is not charity. It's theft.
Another thought: If the left so stridently believes in "the separation of church and state," how can any of them justify using the Bible to argue for public policy?
Thanks for the excellent letter to the editor on the moral imperative of universal health care. I notice in this morning's paper that Mr. Dave Whitaker of Danville thinks liberals misuse the bible by quoting it. He says that liberals believe in separation of church and state (true for most, I'm sure) and that Jesus never said anything about forcing people to spend their money on government programs. Wonder whether he ever read the passage where Jesus is quoted as saying, "Render unto Caesar what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's?" Matthew 22:15-22. (here)
Also, Jesus paid his taxes. See Matthew 17: 24-27. here
Jesus was the most liberal man who ever lived, but I don't suppose you'd want to start that argument, and I don't blame you.
You go, Lindsay!
Jane Donahue <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Blessed is he who prefereth his brother before himself.
Hurt not others with that which pains you.
This is the sum of duty: do naught to others that which if done to thee would cause pain.
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Posted on Fri, Aug. 13, 2004
I support unification by either means of: (1) Sudden unification by state law, and/or/simultaneously (2) Gradual unification by the piecemeal combinations of duplicate departments and elimination of redundancies.
One of our many redundancies is that Macon-Bibb has two Indian chiefs, The mayor and the county commission chairman. One or both of these positions must be emasculated during the process to achieve unification.
This is why I disagree with your editorial position, in which you seem to be supporting the perpetuation of a powerful mayorship.
Even if we had only one chief, I still believe we would be better served by a hired manager who serves at the pleasure of the entire council/commission.
A good people-person politician unifier is unlikely to also possess the skills of a cutthroat capitalistic business manager.
Lindsay D. Holliday
Unification documents: http://www.macon-bibb.com/Unity/Index.htm
No SPLOST oversight
Posted on Sun, Feb. 15, 2004
A vote March 2 for the proposed SPLOST is like saying: Dear Mayor Ellis and Dear Chairman Olmstead, I approve of your job performances and I totally trust you to wisely spend our taxpayers' money as you desire with no "checks and balances" and no "citizen oversight" to distract you.
A "no" vote says to C. Jack Ellis and Tommy Olmstead: "Based on your recent job performances, I do not trust you to spend this money wisely behind closed doors without real public input and scrutiny."
How could anyone who has knowledge of the serious abuses of the past two SPLOSTs vote "yes" to such an open-ended tax as this one? The last paragraph of this SPLOST authorizes an additional $35 million of new bonds (debt) to be issued. Incredible.
Links to information about the past two SPLOSTs is posted on-line at http://www.macon-bibb.com/SPLOST
We need to insist on better government and fiscal responsibility with these luxury programs. This SPLOST seems custom written for insider deals and fiscal abuse, so I will vote "no," and I hope you will too.
We will never get better options to vote on if we continue to accept the same old stuff. I challenge Ellis and Olmstead to redesign this SPLOST for the November ballot.
Let's try doing it right for once.
Lindsay D. Holliday
[published in abridged form on Wednesday September 8, 1999.]
Editors -Macon Telegraph
September 6, 1999 - submitted
Stone Tablets and Scofflawss
The Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) is withholding reasonable access to public records concerning the Macon/Bibb Road Improvements Program. A court reporter from Claude Joiner, Inc. has typed a transcript of verbal comments at a public hearing held on July 13, 1999 at the Macon Centreplex concerning the proposed Eisenhower Parkway Extension. These transcripts were given to the GaDOT in two formats: 1- a stack of typed pages, and 2- one computer disk containing the same information.
After my numerous requests for a copy of the information on the disk, Ms. Walker of the DOT finally offered to send me photocopies of the paper stack for $69.50, which included shipping and handling. Why should a taxpayer be charged for "snail-mail" and paper (delivered of course over our GaDOT roads) when a copy of the computer disk can be emailed instantly (over the phone lines) at virtually no cost?
GA State Law (code 50-18) provides that copies of computer based records must be provided by the most economical method. Can you imagine how hard it would be to disseminate information if it had to be chiseled on to stone tablets - or photocopied from original paper. A well-trained engineer understands this problem very well.
To read a more thorough accounting of my attempts to acquire public records from the DOT, go to http://www.hollidaydental.com/dotpr.htm
Why is the DOT attempting to hide public record details from the public about this $150 million project? Macon has no meaningful oversight of its $300M Road Improvement Program. How long should this be tolerated?
The letter above was published partly edited by the Macon Telegraph on Wednesday September 8, 1999.
It read like this:
DOT should reassess records policy
Editors: The Georgia Department of Transportation is
withholding reasonable access to public records concerning
the Macon/Bibb Road Improvements Program.
A court reporter from Claude Joiner Inc. has typed a
transcript of oral comments at a public hearing held on July
13 at the Macon Centreplex concerning the proposed
Eisenhower Parkway Extension.
These transcripts were given to the DOT in two formats: (1) a
stack of typed pages, and (2) one computer disk containing
the same information.
After my numerous requests for a copy of the information on
the disk, Lesa Walker of the DOT finally offered to send me
photocopies of the paper stack for $69.50, which included
shipping and handling. Why should a taxpayer be charged
for "snail-mail" and paper (delivered, of course, over our DOT
roads) when a copy of the computer disk can be e-mailed
instantly (over the phone lines) at virtually no cost?
State Law (code 50-18) provides that copies of
computer-based records must be provided by the most
economical method. Imagine how hard it would be to
disseminate information if it had to be chiseled onto stone
tablets - or photocopied from original paper. A well-trained
engineer understands this problem very well.
Why is the DOT attempting to hide public record details from
the public about this $150 million project?