I think you know me well enough to know that I don’t believe that everything is relative. When a Christian leader speaks out to say there is only one way to behave in an area where Scripture does not, that is binding one’s conscience. A corollary would be to say that Christians shouldn’t play cards.
You are right when you point out the high cost of healthcare in some of the larger cities in our country. However, in states like mine, the Republican party has been the group mainly responsible for the shutdown of so many rural hospitals that access to healthcare is scant at best, except in the large cities lake Nashville.
Andrea and I just visited New Mexico, and they can’t attract doctors and nurses to their state. Rural, poor people are suffering.
Medically-trained people can’t see the worth in moving to a poor state, so they will practice in large cities where they can make a living.
Cost-of-living is tough all around, in my opinion. My family is certainly feeling it. But as a nation, our inflation is lower than the rest of the world’s by a good bit.
I’m just trying to provide further info that gives a differing viewpoint. The candidates we are presented with give all Christians a very challenging decision to make. I know you’ve made your decision, but there’s a large swath of very faithful Holy Spirit-filled people who will make a different choice. Peace to you and yours.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see you’ve given a lot of thought to these issues, and I appreciate the chance to look at them from multiple angles.
On the topic of healthcare and rural hospital closures, I agree that access to healthcare in these communities is a serious concern. That said, I think it’s essential to look at the full picture of what drives these closures. While it’s true that some policies from the Republican side may have impacted rural hospitals, there’s also a substantial case that certain federal policies, like those tied to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), created additional financial strain for these hospitals. The ACA brought a lot of positive changes but also led to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, which affected the financial viability of smaller hospitals, especially those serving lower-income rural populations.
In Tennessee, opting out of Medicaid expansion has been a point of contention. However, it’s interesting to note that Medicaid expansion hasn’t been a cure-all; even states that expanded Medicaid are facing rural healthcare challenges. This suggests that the issues might run deeper, possibly needing more tailored solutions that go beyond expansion alone. From a conservative standpoint, some suggest that private-sector-driven approaches, like incentivizing healthcare professionals to work in underserved areas or reducing regulations to make telemedicine more accessible, could help address these problems more sustainably.
On the high cost of healthcare in Nashville, I see where you’re coming from. Cities across the country, not just Nashville, are experiencing higher healthcare costs, often influenced by strict regulations and limited competition. Conservatives frequently advocate for reforms that reduce regulatory burdens and increase patient choice—approaches aimed at lowering costs while still ensuring quality care.
Regarding inflation and the cost of living, Nashville’s growth certainly presents challenges. The rising housing prices and general inflation pressures are affecting everyone, and many people feel it daily. Some argue that economic policies from larger, more urban-centered areas or at the federal level have a significant impact here, and addressing affordability could benefit from both local and state solutions. Conservatives might lean toward encouraging housing development, reducing taxes, and supporting business growth to help address the cost of living in meaningful ways.
These are complex issues with multiple perspectives, and I respect that Christians are coming to different conclusions based on their experiences and priorities. Thanks again for your thoughtful input—I always appreciate discussing these things with someone who brings such depth to the conversation. Peace to you and your family as well.
Careful that you are not binding people's consciences, my brother. This is a sin. I agree there are definitely consequential considerations, but your posts are so partisan its not funny. Just to balance a bit of the case you're trying to make, did you know that the bottom ten states in terms of poverty rates are all Republican-run? I'm living in a super-majority red state, and life here is not so great. Choose wisely.
Not sure what you mean by "binding consciences"? If you are suggesting that everything is relative, and truth is whatever anyone wants it to be, then no one has anything to say to anybody about anything. Anything goes. However, if you regard universal, objective truth, it's not something we determine, but someone in whom we are determined. And on the subject of poverty, your categorically wrong:
To rank cities in terms of poverty while factoring in the cost of living and other factors, you would need to consider a more comprehensive measure beyond just the federal poverty level (FPL). One such measure is the **Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)**, which accounts for:
- **Cost of Living:** This includes housing, utilities, food, transportation, and other essential expenses that vary significantly by location. Cities with a higher cost of living might have higher incomes but still experience significant poverty when adjusted for local costs.
- **Government Benefits:** The SPM includes the effects of government assistance programs (like food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits) on alleviating poverty.
- **Tax Payments:** It considers the impact of taxes on disposable income, which can affect the ability to meet basic needs.
- **Medical Expenses:** Out-of-pocket medical expenses are considered, as they can significantly reduce disposable income, especially in areas with high healthcare costs.
### Ranking Cities by Adjusted Poverty
1. **San Francisco, CA (Blue)**: Despite high incomes, the extremely high cost of living results in a higher adjusted poverty rate.
2. **Los Angeles, CA (Blue)**: High housing costs drive up the adjusted poverty rate.
3. **Miami, FL (Red)**: High housing and living costs, despite relatively lower incomes.
4. **New York City, NY (Blue)**: High cost of living, particularly in housing and services, increases the adjusted poverty rate.
5. **Boston, MA (Blue)**: High education levels and incomes, but also a very high cost of living.
6. **Washington, D.C. (Blue)**: High housing and transportation costs, with a significant population struggling despite government presence.
7. **Honolulu, HI (Blue)**: High costs for housing, food, and transportation elevate the adjusted poverty rate.
8. **San Diego, CA (Blue)**: High living costs in housing and basic goods and services.
9. **Chicago, IL (Blue)**: Major disparities in income and cost of living across neighborhoods increase poverty rates.
10. **Philadelphia, PA (Blue)**: Older housing stock, high utility costs, and low wages in some sectors contribute to higher poverty.
### Key Considerations
- **Urban Density:** Cities with higher population density, such as those in California and New York, often have higher living costs, affecting their poverty rates when adjusted for cost of living.
- **Housing Market:** Cities with high real estate prices, like San Francisco and New York, may see higher poverty rates despite higher average incomes.
- **Healthcare Costs:** Cities with high medical expenses can push families into poverty despite seemingly adequate incomes.
**Sources:**
- The U.S. Census Bureau’s reports on poverty and income
- The Urban Institute’s analyses on cost-of-living adjusted poverty rates
- Local economic studies on housing and living costs
These adjustments show that poverty is more complex than income alone; it requires understanding local economic conditions, available resources, and the cost of essential goods and services.
I think you know me well enough to know that I don’t believe that everything is relative. When a Christian leader speaks out to say there is only one way to behave in an area where Scripture does not, that is binding one’s conscience. A corollary would be to say that Christians shouldn’t play cards.
You are right when you point out the high cost of healthcare in some of the larger cities in our country. However, in states like mine, the Republican party has been the group mainly responsible for the shutdown of so many rural hospitals that access to healthcare is scant at best, except in the large cities lake Nashville.
Andrea and I just visited New Mexico, and they can’t attract doctors and nurses to their state. Rural, poor people are suffering.
Medically-trained people can’t see the worth in moving to a poor state, so they will practice in large cities where they can make a living.
Cost-of-living is tough all around, in my opinion. My family is certainly feeling it. But as a nation, our inflation is lower than the rest of the world’s by a good bit.
I’m just trying to provide further info that gives a differing viewpoint. The candidates we are presented with give all Christians a very challenging decision to make. I know you’ve made your decision, but there’s a large swath of very faithful Holy Spirit-filled people who will make a different choice. Peace to you and yours.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I can see you’ve given a lot of thought to these issues, and I appreciate the chance to look at them from multiple angles.
On the topic of healthcare and rural hospital closures, I agree that access to healthcare in these communities is a serious concern. That said, I think it’s essential to look at the full picture of what drives these closures. While it’s true that some policies from the Republican side may have impacted rural hospitals, there’s also a substantial case that certain federal policies, like those tied to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), created additional financial strain for these hospitals. The ACA brought a lot of positive changes but also led to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, which affected the financial viability of smaller hospitals, especially those serving lower-income rural populations.
In Tennessee, opting out of Medicaid expansion has been a point of contention. However, it’s interesting to note that Medicaid expansion hasn’t been a cure-all; even states that expanded Medicaid are facing rural healthcare challenges. This suggests that the issues might run deeper, possibly needing more tailored solutions that go beyond expansion alone. From a conservative standpoint, some suggest that private-sector-driven approaches, like incentivizing healthcare professionals to work in underserved areas or reducing regulations to make telemedicine more accessible, could help address these problems more sustainably.
On the high cost of healthcare in Nashville, I see where you’re coming from. Cities across the country, not just Nashville, are experiencing higher healthcare costs, often influenced by strict regulations and limited competition. Conservatives frequently advocate for reforms that reduce regulatory burdens and increase patient choice—approaches aimed at lowering costs while still ensuring quality care.
Regarding inflation and the cost of living, Nashville’s growth certainly presents challenges. The rising housing prices and general inflation pressures are affecting everyone, and many people feel it daily. Some argue that economic policies from larger, more urban-centered areas or at the federal level have a significant impact here, and addressing affordability could benefit from both local and state solutions. Conservatives might lean toward encouraging housing development, reducing taxes, and supporting business growth to help address the cost of living in meaningful ways.
These are complex issues with multiple perspectives, and I respect that Christians are coming to different conclusions based on their experiences and priorities. Thanks again for your thoughtful input—I always appreciate discussing these things with someone who brings such depth to the conversation. Peace to you and your family as well.
Careful that you are not binding people's consciences, my brother. This is a sin. I agree there are definitely consequential considerations, but your posts are so partisan its not funny. Just to balance a bit of the case you're trying to make, did you know that the bottom ten states in terms of poverty rates are all Republican-run? I'm living in a super-majority red state, and life here is not so great. Choose wisely.
Not sure what you mean by "binding consciences"? If you are suggesting that everything is relative, and truth is whatever anyone wants it to be, then no one has anything to say to anybody about anything. Anything goes. However, if you regard universal, objective truth, it's not something we determine, but someone in whom we are determined. And on the subject of poverty, your categorically wrong:
To rank cities in terms of poverty while factoring in the cost of living and other factors, you would need to consider a more comprehensive measure beyond just the federal poverty level (FPL). One such measure is the **Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)**, which accounts for:
- **Cost of Living:** This includes housing, utilities, food, transportation, and other essential expenses that vary significantly by location. Cities with a higher cost of living might have higher incomes but still experience significant poverty when adjusted for local costs.
- **Government Benefits:** The SPM includes the effects of government assistance programs (like food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits) on alleviating poverty.
- **Tax Payments:** It considers the impact of taxes on disposable income, which can affect the ability to meet basic needs.
- **Medical Expenses:** Out-of-pocket medical expenses are considered, as they can significantly reduce disposable income, especially in areas with high healthcare costs.
### Ranking Cities by Adjusted Poverty
1. **San Francisco, CA (Blue)**: Despite high incomes, the extremely high cost of living results in a higher adjusted poverty rate.
2. **Los Angeles, CA (Blue)**: High housing costs drive up the adjusted poverty rate.
3. **Miami, FL (Red)**: High housing and living costs, despite relatively lower incomes.
4. **New York City, NY (Blue)**: High cost of living, particularly in housing and services, increases the adjusted poverty rate.
5. **Boston, MA (Blue)**: High education levels and incomes, but also a very high cost of living.
6. **Washington, D.C. (Blue)**: High housing and transportation costs, with a significant population struggling despite government presence.
7. **Honolulu, HI (Blue)**: High costs for housing, food, and transportation elevate the adjusted poverty rate.
8. **San Diego, CA (Blue)**: High living costs in housing and basic goods and services.
9. **Chicago, IL (Blue)**: Major disparities in income and cost of living across neighborhoods increase poverty rates.
10. **Philadelphia, PA (Blue)**: Older housing stock, high utility costs, and low wages in some sectors contribute to higher poverty.
### Key Considerations
- **Urban Density:** Cities with higher population density, such as those in California and New York, often have higher living costs, affecting their poverty rates when adjusted for cost of living.
- **Housing Market:** Cities with high real estate prices, like San Francisco and New York, may see higher poverty rates despite higher average incomes.
- **Healthcare Costs:** Cities with high medical expenses can push families into poverty despite seemingly adequate incomes.
**Sources:**
- The U.S. Census Bureau’s reports on poverty and income
- The Urban Institute’s analyses on cost-of-living adjusted poverty rates
- Local economic studies on housing and living costs
These adjustments show that poverty is more complex than income alone; it requires understanding local economic conditions, available resources, and the cost of essential goods and services.