Artful Dodger:

"You're like so many misguided on the Left. Jesus never said that the government should take care of people. And not everyone believes in Jesus anyway. Besides, there's this little inconvenient thing called separation of church and state."

If there is a separation of church and state, then why are some politicians selling their perceived Chistian values as potential government policy? To be fair, it happens on both Repuiblican and Democrat Candiadates. In the United States it is impossible for a candidate to win an election if he does not profess himself/herself to be a Christian.

From George W. Bush: "We are in a crusade against the axis of evil." George W. Bush used his return to Christianity as a big selling point in his political campaigns. Obama repeated so many times that he was a Christian until his religious associations got him into some minor trouble.

I think a more accurate description is that we have a separation of "Clergy and the State" rather than "Religion and the State"

Jesus never said that the State should be involved in .taking care of the people, but then in Jesus' time such a concept did not even exist. The idea that the state should take care of the people is a product of the early 20th century. As such it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Having said that, the question is: "Is there a contradiction between the state taking care of people and the values expounded by Jesus?" Jesus clearly believed in helping the poor, as his miracles attest. A person could easily interpret the role of the state as an extension of those values.

Ultimately it comes to selfishness and individualism. The state taking care of people is a form of collective action that requires those who pay taxes to put aside some selfishness and accept that the state has a role in helping the poor. It is part of the modern social contract. We surrender the power to the decide to the state. The reason why we can't agree on how is because each politician pretends to represent the values of his/her constituency. If the politician is selfish and individualistic, he/she will put forward his/her personal values as if they were those of everyone he/she represents.

Well, I think most people agree that everyone needs healthcare. The question then is "Should the state provide it or should the private sector provide it?"

If the state provides it, then the cost is deferred to tax payers. If the private sector provides it, then the cost is deferred to individual insurance buyers and the profit goes to all those companies involved in providing insurance and healthcare services. Either way, people have to pay for it no matter what. It is a matter of belief on whether tax dollars or personal wealth should determine the cost and quality of care.