Compassionate Conservatism is dead

[Thunder]

It is clear that "compassionate Conservatism" is long dead.

All we hear now is greedy, selfish, inhumane Republicans and Conservatives who don't want either their tax dollars or their health care premiums going to pay for the health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercize, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.

what happened guys? aren't you the party of "What Would Jesus Do?"?

again and again..the walk just don't match the talk.

[fuelair]

Not dead, never existed.

[Earthborn]

aren't you the party of "What Would Jesus Do?"?They're telling the crippled to "take up your bed and walk" and rubbing spit and mud in the eyes of the blind. Is that not what Jesus would do?

[MattusMaximus]

Not dead, never existed.

Ditto. It was just a cheap slogan used to fool enough independents into voting for Bush in 2000.

And it worked.

[Tricky]

Not dead, never existed.
I don't think that's true. I just don't think there were ever enough of them to influence their leaders.

[Whiplash]

So then, any concerns about the implications and impact of this new healthcare system in America are only driven by selfish desires, no concern for the welfare of anyone else, and even bigotry. There is obviously no room for any concern over such sweeping, huge changes that will directly affect the lives of millions of people.

Got it. In other words.. the exact same thing hardcore lefties say about the right on virtually every position imaginable. Over and over. Like broken records. Their selfish. They want you to suffer and die. They don't want to help you. They are evil. We love you. We care for you. We'll balance the books.. somehow..

I have to admit, I'm still a bit fascinated by this desire by some on the left to "help" the GOP. We aren't really looking for any advice, thanks.

[corplinx]

Parky76, you should start your own blog for these wonderful topics you have been coming up with lately.

[MattusMaximus]

So then, any concerns about the implications and impact of this new healthcare system in America are only driven by selfish desires, no concern for the welfare of anyone else, and even bigotry. There is obviously no room for any concern over such sweeping, huge changes that will directly affect the lives of millions of people.

I agree with you, in some respects. The points that are brought up concerning the costs & finances of such reform are, to me, perfectly valid criticisms and worthy of debate. In fact, I credit the Blue Dog Democrats with bringing this discussion to the forefront of the issue. I have a hard time seeing the motivations of the current GOP leadership as anything more than playing political games for the sake of having Obama look bad.

Got it. In other words.. the exact same thing hardcore lefties say about the right on virtually every position imaginable. Over and over. Like broken records. Their selfish. They want you to suffer and die. They don't want to help you. They are evil. We love you. We care for you. We'll balance the books.. somehow..

My main beef with the whole "compassionate conservative" schtick is that it came from a group of politicos whose sole motivation seemed to want to use the phrase in an effort to win the 2000 election. It was all form, no substance.

I've seen numerous conservative people who are glad to give you the shirt off their back in generosity. My complaint isn't with those people, it is with the political wonks & talking heads in the conservative movement who cynically use such language to manipulate people.

Btw, I think anyone who insists "all conservatives" are just a bunch of selfish jerks not interested in helping their fellow man is being a grade-A *********. And yes, that comment is directed squarely at some posting on this thread.

I have to admit, I'm still a bit fascinated by this desire by some on the left to "help" the GOP. We aren't really looking for any advice, thanks.

Sorry, Whip, but when you have Sarah Palin serving, in many ways, as the public face of the GOP, your party needs help. That is coming from numerous Republicans and Independents whom I know have become rather disenchanted with the GOP of late, some of whom reside on these boards.

If the GOP has a better way, go out there and show it to us.

[Tricky]

So then, any concerns about the implications and impact of this new healthcare system in America are only driven by selfish desires, no concern for the welfare of anyone else, and even bigotry. There is obviously no room for any concern over such sweeping, huge changes that will directly affect the lives of millions of people.
Not necessarily, but most of the conservative "concerns" I've seen have been based on outrageous lies and fearmongering like "killing Grandma" or "funding abortion" or "giving health care to illegal immigrants", and of course, the inevitable "It will cost me money". I don't see a lot of compassion in these objections at all. It is kind of hard to paint the "uncaring government" as being worse than the "uncaring insurance industry". What is more compassionate about the conservative stance on health care? I mean among real issues, not "death panel" nonsense.

Got it. In other words.. the exact same thing hardcore lefties say about the right on virtually every position imaginable. Over and over. Like broken records. Their selfish. They want you to suffer and die. They don't want to help you. They are evil. We love you. We care for you. We'll balance the books.. somehow..
Got it. The evil lefties want to destroy the government by stealing everyone's money. Less government will solve your problems. (Well, it's no less a partisan fantasy than your scenario.)

I have to admit, I'm still a bit fascinated by this desire by some on the left to "help" the GOP. We aren't really looking for any advice, thanks.
LOL. Whose advice are you looking for internally? Rush Limbaugh? Sarah Palin? Michael Steele? What is the source of good advice for the GOP these days? Maybe they ought to shop around a little.

[Cain]

Fundamentally, I do not think the ideologues at the center of the Republican party, or the libertarianish types on this forum, are all too interested in discussing the efficiency of healthcare, much less compassionate government solutions to mitigating social scourges. A palatable fear is that welfare state programs will work reasonably well and become popular (like Social Security and Medicare, or Britain's NHS, or the singlepayer system up in Canada), which will make programs almost impossible to dismantle, which means the government will continue to "take" their money. For these people it's fundamentally wrong to tax A (in part) to provide social services for B. It's difficult to call their position a moral one. It's a better example of aesthetics as politics. Anarchists see hierarchy as inherently distasteful -- that there's something intuitively off-kilter in hierarchical relationships. For Republicans the idea of a welfare state is revolting. It's like someone eating a meal and saying, "It's delicious. What is it?" And then finding out that it's some strange or cute animal, they spit it out. "You mean this comes from the government?" Ewwwww.

If more of them were up front about this then we would not have to trade nearly as many posts.

[Brainster]

It is clear that "compassionate Conservatism" is long dead.

You mean it is clear that Obama's presidency is dead, that the guy's a one-term disaster like Jimmy Carter.

What a shame that the Democrats don't have a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. What's that? They do? Then how is it that Obama can't get his health care plan passed without the Republicans?

Is it possible he's just not much of a leader? Who could possibly have guessed that a guy with so little experience would flounder so badly once he got the top job?

[Thunder]

You mean it is clear that Obama's presidency is dead, that the guy's a one-term disaster like Jimmy Carter.


I predict that with some more haggling and negotiating, most of Obama's health care plan will pass. I also predict that both Israel and the Palestinians will reluctantly accept Obama's peace plan.

I further predict that with the help of Sarah Palin, Obama will win a 2nd term in 2012.

With a little luck..Obama may become one of the greatest Presidents the USA has ever had...unless you guys take him out before he has had a chance.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I predict that with some more haggling and negotiating, most of Obama's health care plan will pass. I also predict that both Israel and the Palestinians will reluctantly accept Obama's peace plan.

I further predict that with the help of Sarah Palin, Obama will win a 2nd term in 2012.

With a little luck..Obama may become one of the greatest Presidents the USA has ever had...unless you guys take him out before he has had a chance.


Are you accusing the conservative posters of wanting President Obama killed? Because, if so, that's a pretty heady accusation, one I haven't seen any evidence of. Frankly, I find it distasteful.

[Donal]

Damn this Republican majority in Congress and Republican president, all blocking Obama's "plan".

[leftysergeant]

Are you accusing the conservative posters of wanting President Obama killed? Because, if so, that's a pretty heady accusation, one I haven't seen any evidence of. Frankly, I find it distasteful.

Not most of the conservative posters to this forum, but a lot of screaming yahoos from the Faux News right who come out and makes asses of themselves every time a rational elected official tries to address the issues.

(Although there are a few posters here who expect us to speak of those clowns as though they were decent human beings.)

They are already displaying weapons as they mouth their BS.

Scary.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, those conservatives who have dispalyed any kind of compassion that means anything wind up getting called "liberals" and tend to get the cold shoulder from the rest of the GOP.

Last one I remember serving was Dan Evans from Washington. He was appointed to replace Senator Henry Jackson, then elected in his own right. (Actually, he was one of the three Republicans I have ever voted for.)

"Evans Republican" is used as a term of derision among Washington Republicans.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It sounded as if it was directed at some of the conservative posters here. I hope I'm wrong. I don't get the idea that any of them want the president killed.

[BeAChooser]

I predict that with some more haggling and negotiating, most of Obama's health care plan will pass.

And maybe with the help of a few more lies? :D

[joobz]

And maybe with the help of a few more lies? :D
Lies by whom? ;)

[Beerina]

It is clear that "compassionate Conservatism" is long dead.

All we hear now is greedy, selfish, inhumane Republicans and Conservatives who don't want either their tax dollars or their health care premiums going to pay for the health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercize, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.

what happened guys? aren't you the party of "What Would Jesus Do?"?


I was unaware Jesus would hire police to force people to pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.


Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll wait.

[Marc39]

I'm both Conservative and compassionate. The two are not mutually exclusive. Compassion is not merely providing give-aways, which years of welfare have demonstrated to be a failed philosophy. Compassion is teaching people how to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

[Whiplash]

^ amen.

[Tricky]

I hear the compassionate conservatives have just cut the budget for fishing school.

[Shalamar]

I'm both Conservative and compassionate. The two are not mutually exclusive. Compassion is not merely providing give-aways, which years of welfare have demonstrated to be a failed philosophy. Compassion is teaching people how to take care of themselves and be self-sufficient.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

Deny a man affordable health care, sand he won't use it until it is too late, and then he'll lose everything when the bills come do.

REAL compassionate there. Why don't you just keep going on about your 'compassion' about those fatties stealing your money?

You're only compassionate towards others who think like you do.

[Rolfe]

I was unaware Jesus would hire police to force people to pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll wait.


So how does the USA at present differ from any of the universal healthcare countries when it comes to the more fortunate citizens contributing to the healthcare of the less fortunate?

If you're going to caricature the taxation legislation as "hiring police to force people to pay for" benefits for other people, you have to accept that there's just as much of that going on in the USA right now as anywhere else.

Rolfe.

[Ohmer]

I think the problem with "Compassionate Conservatism" is that it is a position that a politician can't really hold very well. The idea is that we need non-government solutions to our societal problems. When you work for the government it's difficult make that happen.

I see Compassionate Conservatives as regular people who work in their communities to make life better without government involvement.

[Tricky]

I see Compassionate Conservatives as regular people who work in their communities to make life better without government involvement.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it looks as if you're saying that compassionate conservatives are mostly compassionate at a local level. Indeed, that is the main problem I see with conservatism. The closer you get to home, the more compassion they have. Sure, conservatives love their family, their friends, their community etc. but when you get outside the people they personally know and care about, they seem to become less compassionate.

Health care is a good example of this. Of course conservatives will do everything they can to help their family and friends when they're sick. They will even pitch in if a church or club member gets sick. But the thought of helping total strangers via tax dollars seems to be the sticking point. "Charity begins at home", they may say, and they may be right, but it doesn't end there.

And I feel like it is short-sighted. While it is true that you may save a few tax dollars by denying poor people health care, dollars that you can spend on your own charitible projects or whatever else you choose, but I think we should regard the health of the nation as part of the infrastructure. We need a healthy populace in order to be productive in the same way we need roads and power lines in order to be productive. And it doesn't do much good if you only have roads and power lines in your own community. This one of the main ideas of having a nation, after all. "Promote the general welfare."

When you expand your concept of "the general welfare" to include the whole country and all its citizens, then you become more compassionate, IMO.

[Drysdale]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it looks as if you're saying that compassionate conservatives are mostly compassionate at a local level. Indeed, that is the main problem I see with conservatism. The closer you get to home, the more compassion they have. Sure, conservatives love their family, their friends, their community etc. but when you get outside the people they personally know and care about, they seem to become less compassionate.

Health care is a good example of this. Of course conservatives will do everything they can to help their family and friends when they're sick. They will even pitch in if a church or club member gets sick. But the thought of helping total strangers via tax dollars seems to be the sticking point. "Charity begins at home", they may say, and they may be right, but it doesn't end there.

And I feel like it is short-sighted. While it is true that you may save a few tax dollars by denying poor people health care, dollars that you can spend on your own charitible projects or whatever else you choose, but I think we should regard the health of the nation as part of the infrastructure. We need a healthy populace in order to be productive in the same way we need roads and power lines in order to be productive. And it doesn't do much good if you only have roads and power lines in your own community. This one of the main ideas of having a nation, after all. "Promote the general welfare."

When you expand your concept of "the general welfare" to include the whole country and all its citizens, then you become more compassionate, IMO.


Dont quite understand the fault in your definition. Not saying I agree with it necessarily,but if everyone hepled out their friends and family in need, then we would'nt need the govt to help out would we?

[Drysdale]

Bush was a self-proclaimed compassionate conservative, he ended up being disliked by dems,reps and independents.

Why is it a good thing to be a compassionate conservative?

[Praktik]

It's a better example of aesthetics as politics. Anarchists see hierarchy as inherently distasteful -- that there's something intuitively off-kilter in hierarchical relationships. For Republicans the idea of a welfare state is revolting. It's like someone eating a meal and saying, "It's delicious. What is it?" And then finding out that it's some strange or cute animal, they spit it out. "You mean this comes from the government?" Ewwwww.

brilliant! ;)

[Tricky]

Dont quite understand the fault in your definition. Not saying I agree with it necessarily,but if everyone hepled out their friends and family in need, then we would'nt need the govt to help out would we?
Not necessarily. You have to have the good fortune of having people available and capable of helping out, or helping out enough to get them real care. All you'd need is one major illness to exhaust the charity budgets of you and all your friends.

Charity is wonderful, don't get me wrong. I am very charitable toward my friends and loved ones. But I couldn't support 'em all.

[T.A.M.]

I don't think that's true. I just don't think there were ever enough of them to influence their leaders.

Correction,

"I don't think THERE WOULD EVER BE enough of them to influence their leaders."

TAM:)

[Tricky]

Bush was a self-proclaimed compassionate conservative, he ended up being disliked by dems,reps and independents.

Why is it a good thing to be a compassionate conservative?
Bush wasn't really dinged for his compassionate conservatism. In his defense, he really did try to do some things about education, and he got reamed by his own party when he suggested that any new legislation on illegal immigration ought to include a path to citizenship. He had his moments. Bush was disliked for being incompetent, and eventually, even the GOP turned against him.

[T.A.M.]

You mean it is clear that Obama's presidency is dead, that the guy's a one-term disaster like Jimmy Carter.

What a shame that the Democrats don't have a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. What's that? They do? Then how is it that Obama can't get his health care plan passed without the Republicans?

Is it possible he's just not much of a leader? Who could possibly have guessed that a guy with so little experience would flounder so badly once he got the top job?

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Projecting wishful thinking much.

1. Short of a complete collapse of the USG, Obama WILL win a second term.
2. Who said anything about it not getting passed, with or without REPS. It is all a game. Gotta at least look like you tried to get along.
3. Sore loser!

TAM:D

[Whiplash]

Bush wasn't really dinged for his compassionate conservatism. In his defense, he really did try to do some things about education, and he got reamed by his own party when he suggested that any new legislation on illegal immigration ought to include a path to citizenship. He had his moments. Bush was disliked for being incompetent, and eventually, even the GOP turned against him.

A fair analysis, in my opinion. I remember him being taken to task by Limbaugh and others over some of the things you mention.

Incompetent, ultimately, but I still believe a good man who was trying to do what he thought was the right thing at the right times. Not evil.

[Drysdale]

A fair analysis, in my opinion. I remember him being taken to task by Limbaugh and others over some of the things you mention.

Incompetent, ultimately, but I still believe a good man who was trying to do what he thought was the right thing at the right times. Not evil.

I'd agree. I dont think anything he did was malicious.
He was too much a people pleaser to be an effective leader in my opinion.

He stood firm on Iraq,the war on terror aspect.Whether he was right or wrong is subect to debate, but he did what he thought was best and stuck to it.

Unlike other issues where he was trying to appease the left without realizing they were going to hate him no matter what he did.

[Tricky]

I'd agree. I don't think anything he did was malicious.
He was too much a people pleaser to be an effective leader in my opinion.
From the buzz I'm hearing, Dick Cheney agrees with you. Rumors are flying that he is going to trash Bush in his book, mostly for caring too much about polls.

Unlike other issues where he was trying to appease the left without realizing they were going to hate him no matter what he did.
"The Left" is not a monolithic group. I did not vote for him (after seeing what an incompetent Governor he was) but I was willing to be proved wrong. My general feeling was that he would be much like his dad, a man I thought was a much better president than his predecessor. Like many Americans, I gave him much credit right after 9/11 and stood behind him when he sent troops into Afghanistan to try to capture Bin Laden.

Bush's main problem was "bad advice". Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld were essentially given free reign and they don't really qualify as "compassionate conservatives" IMO.

Sure there are those on the far left who would hate any Republican, but not all of us leftists are like that. I praised him when I thought he did the right thing and criticized him when he didn't. I will do the same thing to Obama (who I agree has made a few mistakes already).

[drkitten]

I was unaware Jesus would hire police to force people to pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.


Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll wait.

Actually, He would. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Render unto God the things that are God's." "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."

[ImaginalDisc]

I was unaware Jesus would hire police to force people to pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.


Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll wait.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

<snip>

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


What a wonderfully easy book to mine.

[Marc39]

I hear the compassionate conservatives have just cut the budget for fishing school.

Wrong. Liberals have just increased the sales tax on fish and fishing gear.

[Rolfe]

[....] if everyone hepled out their friends and family in need, then we would'nt need the govt to help out would we?


Goodness, it must be nice to live in your utopia.

Where the rich help out their [rich] family and friends, and the poor are left to find the money for the heart transplants and the chemotherapy and the brain surgery their [poor] friends and relations need. The rich feel their duty has been done because all their acquaintances are looked after, and it's OK to turn a blind eye to the plight of the poor because they have their own people to take care of them I suppose.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind [....]


So why would you regard anyone in your own country as "not-friend" and "not-family"? Why not welcome the fact that the government is willing to do what society cannot reasonably organise unaided, that is to treat us all as "friends and family" of each other?

Rolfe.

[Drysdale]

Goodness, it must be nice to live in your utopia.

Where the rich help out their [rich] family and friends, and the poor are left to find the money for the heart transplants and the chemotherapy and the brain surgery their [poor] friends and relations need. The rich feel their duty has been done because all their acquaintances are looked after, and it's OK to turn a blind eye to the plight of the poor because they have their own people to take care of them I suppose.




So why would you regard anyone in your own country as "not-friend" and "not-family"? Why not welcome the fact that the government is willing to do what society cannot reasonably organise unaided, that is to treat us all as "friends and family" of each other?

Rolfe.

So, there's no poor that are left trying to find the money for the heart transplants and the chemotherapy and the brain surgery their [poor] friends and relations need? There must not be, because the govt takes money from the rich right now and they take care that it's dispersed properly right?

And I live in a Utopia?

[Rolfe]

So, there's no poor that are left trying to find the money for the heart transplants and the chemotherapy and the brain surgery their [poor] friends and relations need? There must not be, because the govt takes money from the rich right now and they take care that it's dispersed properly right?


Well, if there are, it's because your government isn't doing it right.

Seems to me that if the money were "dispersed properly" (did you mean "disbursed"?) then nobody would be trying to find the money for these things.

Now, would you prefer:

A. To have the disbursement about 100% more efficient so that all these needs are paid for, or
B. To trust the funding of healthcare for the less well off to private, voluntary charity?

Rolfe.

[gtc]

When you expand your concept of "the general welfare" to include the whole country and all its citizens, then you become more compassionate, IMO.

You've just chosen to draw a different arbitrary line in the sand. Why are you willing for your tax dollars to be used to fund UHC for people in, say Alaska, but not Haiti or Ethiopia?

The EU calls the idea that problems should be solved at the lowest possible level of government subsidiarity. In the US this, along with seeking non-government solutions, seems to be more common on the Conservative side than the Liberal side. There is a downside to this when state rights were used to protect discriminatory laws against federal intervention. However, it is not always a negative.

[Tricky]

You've just chosen to draw a different arbitrary line in the sand. Why are you willing for your tax dollars to be used to fund UHC for people in, say Alaska, but not Haiti or Ethiopia?
I admit, I've chosen an arbitrary line in the sand that could loosely be called "My Country". The reason I do this is because I have some control or at least input into what happens in "My Country", and yes, because I'm a wee bit provincial too.

I will say, though, that the country may be well served by making sure that the rest of the world is not going to hell. Yes, I am, admittedly, an "America First" kinda guy, but I think that one thing that keeps us up near the top is being a good world citizen.

But yes, you're right. My line is somewhat arbitrary. Almost "patriotic".

The EU calls the idea that problems should be solved at the lowest possible level of government subsidiarity. In the US this, along with seeking non-government solutions, seems to be more common on the Conservative side than the Liberal side. There is a downside to this when state rights were used to protect discriminatory laws against federal intervention. However, it is not always a negative.
I wouldn't deny that either. There are indeed some things that are best decided at community or state level. But even in giving states these rights, we need to reserve the authority to override these "rights". That is why anti-discrimination amendments were added to The Constitution. There are other federal statutes that don't require constitutional amendments, but the general idea is that the Federal Government has the right, even the duty, to act on what it feels is best for "promoting the general welfare", even if it overrides local rule. I know, it's a thin line to dance on, but I definitely think health care is one thing that cannot be entirely decided by local fiat. Local prejudices are sometimes stronger than global ones. At least they are in Texas and Alabama, the two states where I've spent most of my life.

[gtc]

But yes, you're right. My line is somewhat arbitrary. Almost "patriotic".

Don't get me wrong, I don't disrepect your position. I just think concentrating compassion on a different level is also valid.


I wouldn't deny that either. There are indeed some things that are best decided at community or state level. But even in giving states these rights, we need to reserve the authority to override these "rights". That is why anti-discrimination amendments were added to The Constitution. There are other federal statutes that don't require constitutional amendments, but the general idea is that the Federal Government has the right, even the duty, to act on what it feels is best for "promoting the general welfare", even if it overrides local rule. I know, it's a thin line to dance on, but I definitely think health care is one thing that cannot be entirely decided by local fiat. Local prejudices are sometimes stronger than global ones. At least they are in Texas and Alabama, the two states where I've spent most of my life.

I support that argument and state's rights shouldn't be used to impinge on individual rights. I suspect that, if I was American, I might come down on the other side of your line when it comes to healthcare. On the other hand, I think the way Australia organises schools and policing at the state rather than local level is better than your system.

[Tricky]

Don't get me wrong, I don't disrepect your position. I just think concentrating compassion on a different level is also valid.
Oh, certainly it is, and if you knew how much money I send to my siblings every month, it would dispell any notions that I'm not "locally charitable", not that you implied such.

But my comment was made in response to Drysdale who said something to the effect that if we all took care of charity at a local level, we wouldn't have to involve the government, and I don't think that is correct.

[gtc]

If resources were more evenly distributed and if everyone bought into the idea that charity should happen at a local level then government intervention wouldn't be needed.

Problem is that neither of those two requirements are met.

[Tricky]

If resources were more evenly distributed and if everyone bought into the idea that charity should happen at a local level then government intervention wouldn't be needed.

Problem is that neither of those two requirements are met.
Especially the first one. That would require either an incredibly homogeneous society or (gasp) Communism.

[volatile]

I was unaware Jesus would hire police to force people to pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor.



You're already forced to "pay for health care of folks who drink, smoke, do drugs, are over-weight, don't exercise, are illegal, are ugly, or are poor" right now. By the insurance company you pay into.

BTW: when are you going to get rid of your stupid, stupid signature? How many times does that need to be debunked?