Conservative Christian groups on Wednesday (Aug. 26) ramped up opposition to health care reform, saying the current system “has problems” but “it is working.”
Members of the newly formed Freedom Federation, comprised of some of the largest conservative religious groups in the country, say they oppose taxpayer-supported abortion, rationed health care for the elderly and government control of personal health decisions.
Mathew Staver, who heads the legal group Liberty Counsel and is dean at Liberty University’s law school, said the group agrees on certain core values.
Are these people for real? The current system is working?!!! They might need to get out a little more!
Of course it’s working. Only about 10% of the population is involuntarily without health insurance, and even they can get treatment. Like they said, there are problems that generally caused by state intervention, but the system is largely fine.
When about 80% of the population is satisfied with current health coverage, it’s hard to say it’s a total failure. Something does need to be done to assist people who are uninsured or uninsurable because of job loss and/or pre-existing conditions. These problems could be solved with far less intrusive and coercive proposals than those currently before Congress.
yep #3, the Republicans offered amendments in 1994 to address portability and pre existing conditions. They were shut out, as they will be this time around….
Am I wrong in believing that we spend way more per capita for health care than any other rich country, and our health outcomes by any number of measures are way worse than most other rich countries? Surely the satisfaction of the 80% (are they by any chance the healthiest 80%?) isn’t the only criterion if we’re in a situation that’s not sustainable.
Also, how do they phrase the “are you happy” question? I’m happy with my health insurance, but I hate the fact that I have to make professional decisions based on keeping this particular coverage. And I hate the fear of knowing that if I lose my job for some reason I’m back to square one. So I can love my coverage but still despise the system.
Obviously the current system isn’t working for that 1 out of every 10 people Jeffersonian mentions. If your insurance was terminated or you cannot get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, it isn’t working for you. If you were forced into bankruptcy, probably losing your home in the process, because of a catastrophic illness, it isn’t working for you.
Let’s face it, health care is rationed for the elderly–and everybody else. If you have insurance, the insurance company will determine what doctor’s you can use and under what conditions, what treatments and procedures those doctors may use, what medications those doctors may prescribe. These decisions will be based on the insurance company’s bottom line. If you have Medicare there will be decisions based on government regulations. Otherwise you will be “rationed” to those doctors, treatments and prescriptions you can afford. And that may mean the County Hospital where you have no choice of doctors or much of anything.
“You get what you can pay for” is one system of rationing, which allocates resources on the basis of wealth rather than need or anything else.
If you don’t want abortions paid for out of taxpayer funds, work to put that language in the bill. The restriction is in virtually every health care law.
It is a disgrace that the greatest and wealthiest country on earth can put a man on the moon (a government program) can’t care for the least of these, its people.
even they can get treatment.
bares repeating: lack of insurance doesn’t mean lack of medical care.
MarkP, yes, I think you are incorrect in that thinking. European cancer survival rates, for instance, are well below US cancer survival rates.
I repeat, the major problems are having insurance tied to employment and how to insure people with pre-existing conditions other than through employment-related plans. If we want to improve the system, we should focus on those issues, not construct a 1000+ page complicated new system which will even further restrict freedom of choice and will make your IRS data open to employees at HHS.
and US child mortality rates are way above
I am told that US child mortality rates include pre-term infants born live, while European statistics do not.
We clearly have some lifestyle problems in the US, too. We’re too heavy, as a national average, which affects our health, on average.
Where exactly do you get that 80% figure from? Citation please.
I don’t have the citation, but those figures come from both Rasmussen and Gallup polls conducted around the end of July this year.
I could probably find them again but it would take a bit of web searching. That was one of those things were I said “Oh, that’s where it comes from” but neglected to bookmark the site.
From my humble experience, our health care system works fine as long as you aren’t middle class (however you define it) and don’t have a long-term or catastophic health issue. So, here’s wishing all y’all good genes and make sure you look both ways before you cross the road.
“The current system “has problems” but “it is working.” The Limbaugh-istas and their media and religious allies hope that if they keep yelling that mantra and screaming “socialism” at the top of their lungs often enough, everyone will ignore the plain evidence right in front of them. I plan to let my daughter and son-in-law how well the “system is working”. They work, but have no health insurance because none is offered and if they want individual policies the cost would exceed their rent and utilities. Hey but that’s no problem. They system is working.
The “religious right” never fails – couldn’t they do something more than just surrender to their ideological allies?
On the U5MR stats being mentioned:
[blockquote]First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. [/blockquote]
[url=http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm]LINK[/url]
[blockquote]They work, but have no health insurance because none is offered and if they want individual policies the cost would exceed their rent and utilities. Hey but that’s no problem. They system is working. [/blockquote]
I bet if they looked and scaled back their plan, they could find something. I had a friend that sold healthcare policies back during the last big push to collectivize the system in 1993/4. He said he had family policies that cost $30/month…and that he had sold precisely none of them.
So, if I get your point, Dan, if something someone wants is too expensive for them to buy, the solution is to get everyone else to pay for it?
5. MarkP wrote:
[/blockquote]Am I wrong in believing that we spend way more per capita for health care than any other rich country,[/blockquote]
No, you are not wrong. We spend approximately twice as much of our Gross Domestic Product on health care as any other industrialized country. And it works out to about twice as much per person, too. And it is doubtful that we benefit all that much by spending all that extra.
16. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]I bet if they looked and scaled back their plan, they could find something. I had a friend that sold healthcare policies back during the last big push to collectivize the system in 1993/4. He said he had family policies that cost $30/month[/blockquote]
I wonder why. Could it be that it was so restrictive as to render the policy utterly worthless.
I did a quick check on the web. I invented a family of four. Dad is 35, Mom is 33, son 10, daughter 8 living in Denton, TX. All non-smokers. The least expensive policy I found was from United Health One at $190/month. You must use a network physician, there is a $10,000 deductible, 20% co-pay, no prescription benefit and office visits are not covered. The median family income in Texas is $49,933. Essentially they would be paying 5% of their income just for what is essentially a catastrophic insurance policy. If they did experience a major illness, they would be facing $10,000 plus medicine, plus co-pay, plus office visits on top of the $2,280 a year they had paid for insurance–probably at least 25% of their income. (Incidentally, the same company has policies that go for over $1,100 a month for that family. Yes, it covers a lot more–but at 50% of their income, forget it.)
This is just your average working family. Not freeloaders. Not welfare cases.
Medical insurance costs have risen sharply since 1993/4, Jefferson. That’s part of the problem. Furthermore, the projections all show them rising exponentially in the next decade or so unless something is done.
A couple of hundred bucks a month doesn’t strike me as very expensive for actual insurance, as opposed to the pre-payment plans most of us have today that greatly inflate the costs of health care transactions. It would almost surely be a better option than the $1,100/mo plan.
But maybe health care is something that is so precious, so valuable, it should be free. Just wait until you see what it costs then.
Maybe the number comes from here? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.poll/index.html
of course, there is this:
[blockquote]Half of all Americans questioned in the poll said they are very confident that no one in their household will lose health insurance. However, 29 percent said they are very confident that they could meet their bills if someone in the household had a major medical emergency.[/blockquote]
I couldn’t find anything about the methodology of the poll or the sample size, so here’s a grain of salt —-> .
I was quite satisfied with my former coverage, thought it was the bee’s knees until we actually needed it. Now I think it was a different part of the bee entirely. We are with Kaiser HMO now, which felt like a downgrade from our PPO but I’m really impressed overall, and there’s no chance we’ll get hit with surprise bills. I think most people would be happy with a program like it (I mean Kaiser now, I’ve heard they were horrible for a while there)
In the current system there are perhaps 10-15% without healthcare insurance (but they do get healthcare, please note).
1. Perhaps 7% are here illegally. Deportation and secure borders will solve that.
2. Perhaps 3-4% choose cell phones, new cars, cable, hi-speed internet, several dinners a week out instead of insurance—-that’s okay, it’s (still) a free country.
3. And the final 3-4% truly may not have the funds. They can receive aid in a number of means-tested ways.
All of us might like to have private, portable policies like our auto insurance. That can be done by selling insurance nationally and removing the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies so they truly have to compete.
Then remove all the state imposed mandated coverage and let people buy exactly what they want to buy (ala carte).
Then dive into real tort reform not only to squash outlandish settlements that benefit the tort bar but also reduce to nil all the defensive medicine that drives up costs.
And finally, remove the ancient regulations that restrict technical and business innovation in medical care delivery to drive efficiency, improve customer satisfaction, and lower costs.
The country that totally transformed the home computer industry and cell phone industry in 20 years could make our current system seem antiquated and primative in another 20 years if we let the true entreprenues loose.
Or, we can firmly put the Federal Government in charge and 20 years from now what we will have will look like Medicare only trillions and trillions of times worse (PS, don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion, please)
I’m curious about the mandated coverage/a la carte issues. Are there some good resources to read up on that? Do you basically have to place bets on everything you think *might* happen to you (I’ll take cancer, falling off a horse and restless leg syndrome, but I don’t want mental health or dog bites)? Or is it more like picking a lifetime total of $1million, $2million, or unlimited? I know I can google, but if you’ve got something pre-vetted, I’d appreciate it.
The current system surely isn’t working for the Episcopal Church. The premiums in our diocese are set to go up 9% in 2010. My family of 3 (2 34 y/o and one 2 y/o) cost our parish $15,000 a year already. It seems that we are fast becoming a clergy benefit cost sharing association instead of a church.
While the abortion issue is worthy of Christian attention, I do not understand why “conservative” Christians should be taking stands on something as wonkish and secular as health care policy, unless”conservative” in this sense means politically conservative and these Christians are taken with the political idea that health care can be used to inflict political harm on the incumbent president. I find myself frequently having an uneasy feeling that secular politics (important, but not the ultimate issue) and religious issues (very important in the spiritual sphere) are increasingly getting fouled around one another in America.
Dan, #14, I’m curious about your assertion that your daughter and son-in-law would pay more for individual policy than they pay for rent and utilities. My daughter found a reasonable individual policy after graduation prior to obtaining employment that offered insurance. I’m curious, too, about people’s priorities. Do they have two cars? New? Insured? Cell phones? Do they eat out? I mean what do we do? Create a government that makes all these decisions about what we should have and not have for us? Come on! This isn’t religious right. This is a political debate. Government, IMHO, needs to stay out of my life as much as posible beyound protection from crime and enemies. I hope I haven’t made “enemy of the state” status by posting this.
#21…..a la Carte………you could start off with catastrophic care with some deductable (like your home insurance). You cover anything under say $5,000 and insurance kicks in after that. If you want prescription coverage you pay for that. You pick from a menu of covereages you want to build the policy that best suits your circumstances. This has two benefits:
1. You decide what to get and what to pay for
2. Catastrophic care becomes a basic product of the industry that will be priced to lure you in to a particular company. Then insurance companies will try to entice you with other services (to make their profits). Sort of like gasoline at your local gas/food store. The store makes their money on all the goodies you buy, not the gasoline you stopped in for.
24’s comments are the kinds of stuff I hear all too often – it’s a way of deflecting the argument by insinuating that people don’t have health insurance because they are spending their dollars extravagantly on other things. I actually heard a Republican make the same argument when interviewed by Chris Matthews. Matthews asked him what he proposed to do about those without insurance. The Republican muttered something about a lot of people making over $50000 a year. Matthews characterized the person as a “balloon-head” – he was being charitable.
For the record, 24. My daughter and her husband do not own two cars – they have a ten-year old car which is in the garage more often than it is on the road – repairs cost a lot of money, and they have no credit cards. They do have a cell phone – the cheapest they can find. Eating out for them is getting a frozen pizza from the grocery store. My daughter needs medicine for a thyroid dysfunction. She needs medical tests before the medicine is prescribed. She needs doctor appointments. My wife and I can provide this. Finally, individual group coverage in our area costs nearly $500 a month, family coverage nearly $1200. Note I said “group coverage”. These facts, of course, mean nothing to the ideologue. I’ve stopped listening to the opponents of health care reform – they are deliberately and invincibly ignorant.
We’re all for reform, Dan. We’re just not for yet more State intrusion in our private lives, particularly when it involves the State reaching deeper into our pockets. Simply put, someone else’s unresolved medical issues are not my problem, period. I might (and do) support charities that help the less fortunate, but I resent being told I must do so or be sent to prison. I find it deeply immoral.
20. Capt. Deacon Warren wrote:
[blockquote]In the current system there are perhaps 10-15% without healthcare insurance (but they do get healthcare, please note).[/blockquote]
Well, yes, sort of. They end up as “charity cases” in the pubic (i.e., tax supported) hospitals and/or in bankruptcy, with a lot of medical bills being written of. Either way, the rest of us end up paying for it in higher medical costs and taxes.
[blockquote]1. Perhaps 7% are here illegally. Deportation and secure borders will solve that.[/blockquote]
Why are that 7% here illegally? The same lobbyists who support illegal immigration (e.g., the U. S. Chamber of Commerce) also oppose health care reform. Of course, those who break the law and hire illegal aliens to work at low wages, in unsafe conditions and don’t want to have to E-Verify social security numbers obviously don’t provide heath insurance.
[blockquote]2. Perhaps 3-4% choose cell phones, new cars, cable, hi-speed internet, several dinners a week out instead of insurance——that’s okay, it’s (still) a free country.[/blockquote]
And your evidence for this is? I’ll bet you’ve never lived “on the edge” financially and have absolutely no clue as to what it is like.
[blockquote]Then remove all the state imposed mandated coverage and let people buy exactly what they want to buy (ala carte).[/blockquote]
??? By and large the insurance companies wrote those laws. While it is complicated there are (at least in Texas) a wide variety of “menus” to choose from, all effecting the cost of the policies, which for one company, in one county, for a sort of average family of four runs anywhere from $200-$1,200 a month, assuming no pre-existing condition.
[blockquote] Then dive into real tort reform not only to squash outlandish settlements that benefit the tort bar but also reduce to nil all the defensive medicine that drives up costs.[/blockquote]
That may be the most sensible thing you’ve written. I’m sure though, that the trial lawyers and victims of malpractice will not like it.
[blockquote]That can be done by selling insurance nationally and removing the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies so they truly have to compete.[/blockquote]
This is silly. The insurance companies do not want competition. That’s why they oppose both a “public option” or “co-op option”. They like the laws exactly the way they are now–which is why they are spending $1.5 million a day of their premium revenues to defeat any form of health reform.
There all this crap coming from the right about “free markets” and the like. It appears they are totally ignorant of history. There are reasons why monopolies are more or less illegal, why there are anti-trust laws, why there are child labor laws, why there are work place safety laws, why their are minimum wage laws, etc. Because, unrestrained by the government, “free enterprise” ends up a plutocracy which exploits the people.
I, for one do not wish to see this country return to the day of sweat shops, child labor, dangerous work places, monopolies, trusts, and the exploitation of honest labor so that the few can get wealthier and wealthier off the bread of the poor.
Ken, you’re latest post is utterly incoherent. You invoke the magic elixer of regulation and political control as a panacea, simultaeously admitting that it is precisely the regulation and political control of health insurance markets that are inhibiting the benefits the free market have showered on society in every field from breakfast cereals to machine tools. You menace us with the specter of top-hatted “plutocrats” grinding the faces of the poor, while saying it’s those same plutocrats that are delighted with the current regulatory regime. Huh?
Yes, it’s likely the insurance companies love having statutory captive markets so they can jack up premiums. Isn’t that an argument for allowing cross-border purchasing of policies rather than giving these same fatcats a one-stop-shopping locale in DC for all their profit needs?
[blockquote]Well, yes, sort of. They end up as “charity cases†in the pubic (i.e., tax supported) hospitals and/or in bankruptcy, with a lot of medical bills being written of. Either way, the rest of us end up paying for it in higher medical costs and taxes. [/blockquote]
An outgrowth of yet more State intervention in health care, and thus a problem of socialism, not health care.
I seem to recall a law, EMTALA, that decreed the closest trauma center/ER was required to take an indigent patient, where all of a large metro area’s hospitals used to divide them up to share the costs. Congress huffed and puffed in indignation at this, and passed EMTALA. The result was hundreds of ERs and trauma centers in the areas most prone to such cases just closing down to avoid the hemmorage of money. Yet again, Congress’s moral preening winds up hurting those it pretends to help in addition to everyone else who was willing and able to pay for the services these centers provided.
Folks, you see it’s not just me. Katherine has some good points and Ken has equally good points. I believe the answer is some where in between. Jeffersonian, I truly believe that in a blink of an eye you might have a more empathetic position. I have never endorsed a true NHC system but I agree with Ken that we have monopoly issues in the current system. I continue to say that it will be a political solution coupled with intervention.
I agree there are serious barriers to competition, Lee, but the thing to do is to ask wjy that is and to advocate removal of those barriers, not to further empower the body that has created and enforced them. It’s not Aetna that is keeping you from buying a policy from BCBS in Oregon.
“It’s not Aetna that is keeping you from buying a policy from BCBS in Oregon.” Actually it might be. Portability is an old issue that was overcome many years ago by registration. I challenge you to get an individual health care quote from as many carriers as you can. Surprise, the price will be so close it will astound you. How can that be? After saying that, it is really a non issue. I hope that soon I have the time to put a summary plan of action (not a Health Care Plan) into words. Sorry that I am so limited at present.
This issue is such a small pa
29. Jeffersonian wrote:
Ad hominem duly noted; resort to that usually indicates a failed argument.
Returning to the issues instead of personal attacks…
If your argument had any weight whatsoever, the insurance companies would be spending $1.5 million a day pushing for federal health care reform instead of spending $1.5 million a day attempting to defeat federal health care reform.
Haven’t you noticed? The health insurance lobby is opposed to federal health care reform. They [b]want[/b] to keep the [i]status quo[/i].
25. Capt. Deacon Warren wrote:
[blockquote]#21…..a la Carte………you could start off with catastrophic care with some deductible (like your home insurance). You cover anything under say $5,000 and insurance kicks in after that.[/blockquote]
I have told about the affordable $190 dollar a month insurance plan for a family of four (assuming no pre-existing condition). It has a $10,000 deductible. The company offers another policy for about double that had a $5,000 deductible. The policy does not pay for office visits. (So that is out of pocket expense.) The policy does not pay for prescriptions. (So that is an out of pocket expense.) There is a 20% co-pay. Yes, you can get these things thrown in, but you pay for it in much higher premiums.
So if you take the cheap policy, and junior breaks his leg on the jungle gym, you will pay the doctor bills, the lab fees and any pain prescriptions the doctor might prescribe on top of your monthly insurance premium, which really doesn’t cover much of anything until dad has a coronary or mom breast cancer–and then you pay the first $10,000, plus a 20% co-pay for over that, plus prescriptions, plus office visits (restricted to network doctors)–and still get to pay the monthly premiums. Bankruptcy court, here they come.
30. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]I seem to recall a law, EMTALA, that decreed the closest trauma center/ER was required to take an indigent patient, where all of a large metro area’s hospitals used to divide them up to share the costs.[/blockquote]
Which ultimately gets passed on to the paying patients and our insurance premiums.
[blockquote]Ad hominem duly noted; resort to that usually indicates a failed argument.[/blockquote]
Actually, no. I was attacking your argument, not you. I pointed out why your post was incoherent immediately following my thesis statement. Every nostrum you prescribe as a fix is simultaneously lambasted as an unalloyed eveil of the system. You pillory insurance fatcats as manipulators of the political system to thwart the free market in medical care, then go on to demand the political system arrogate to itself MORE power, which will inevitably coopted by those same fatcats to boost their profits.
As I said, it’s incoherent. Why not address my argument instead of feigning outrage?
And no, I haven”t seen the same sort of opposition to health care collectivization I did in 1993/4 from insurance companies. Can you cite an actual source for that? What I have seen is pharmaceutical companies pumping $150 million – more than John McCain’s entire TV budget in the 2008 campaign – into pro-collectivization commercials at the behest of Obama.
[blockquote]Which ultimately gets passed on to the paying patients and our insurance premiums. [/blockquote]
Most likely, yes, but that wasn’t my point. Would you join me in repealing the legislation that forces this set of ills on hospitals and, by your own admission, us?
I’m telling you #36 Ken is speaking truth. In my household for $30,000 a year, the adults only see a doctor when they have significant pain. That $30,000 a year is increasing 18% to 20% per year. No dental insurance. This is a relatively health family and contrary to attacks on several threads we are not very, very sick.
23. NoVA Scout wrote:
[blockquote]While the abortion issue is worthy of Christian attention, I do not understand why “conservative†Christians should be taking stands on something as wonkish and secular as health care policy, unless”conservative†in this sense means politically conservative and these Christians are taken with the political idea that health care can be used to inflict political harm on the incumbent president. I find myself frequently having an uneasy feeling that secular politics (important, but not the ultimate issue) and religious issues (very important in the spiritual sphere) are increasingly getting fouled around one another in America.[/blockquote]
Quite so. I’m probably one of the most theologically conservative of anyone around–my theological views are mostly 3rd century. But I’m also probably one of the most politically liberal of anyone on this list–I’ve even been called a Marxist, although I’m not anywhere near being a Marxist.
The Anglo-Catholics of late 19th century England were very much catholic theologically, but also involved in the Christian-Socialist movement and even the Social Gospel. And the Church Fathers have a lot to say about the disparity between the rich and the poor and social justice. So, for that matter, did Jesus. And certainly that was a common theme of the Old Testament Prophets.
But certainly some have confused religious conservatism with political conservatism in a way which I happen to think is unhealthy for society in general and Christians in particular.
[blockquote]I challenge you to get an individual health care quote from as many carriers as you can. Surprise, the price will be so close it will astound you. How can that be? [/blockquote]
Because health insurers are generally geared to taking on pools of people in companies as employers pay for most coverage today…itself a remnant of state intervention in the economy. I don’t get my car insurance that way, why should I get my health insurance that way?
Make the system responsive to the individual, and it will serve the individual.
[blockquote] I’m telling you #36 Ken is speaking truth. In my household for $30,000 a year, the adults only see a doctor when they have significant pain. That $30,000 a year is increasing 18% to 20% per year. [/blockquote]
Why on earth would you pay $30k a year for something that is only giving you back a fraction of that? Why not get something with a large deductable for a far smaller premium and pay your bills out of pocket?
[blockquote]But I’m also probably one of the most politically liberal of anyone on this list—I’ve even been called a Marxist, although I’m not anywhere near being a Marxist.[/blockquote]
I hate to break the news to you, amigo, but “from each according to his ability…” ain’t Adam Smith.
Jeffersonian, I have been there for years. Tell me how you are insured?
How I am insured or not insured is irrelevant.
# 45. Oh no, it is very relevant as it might explain your true understanding of this issue. I say this because I think there is a huge group of Americans who you are disconnected from.
I’m going to help you avoid ad hominem, Lee.
God Bless, Jeffersonian but I’m not attacking at all. I just think you believe my situation to be extraordinary. It’s not.
I understand, but I’d prefer to discuss ideas, principles and such, not anecdotes.
Has anyone actually seen the federal mandate list – the things that will need to be covered in order for a plan to “qualify” – does it exist yet, or is it still theoretical? I’m curious to see what’s going to be on it, since state mandates are all over the map (ha! get it? map? see what I did there?). That’s going to be some major lobbying dollars spent, to get people’s pet conditions/providers/treatments on the list.
The system is working? Really? Then how come my husband and I had to move to Costa Rica to get affordable healthcare? We were – very literally – about to go broke just by paying for horrible private insurance, not counting ridiculous deductibles and co-pays, since we were unemployed, have pre-exisiting conditions, and are not eligible for Medicare (yet).
By the way, the medical care system here is great and affordable, and you can choose public or private and still get great care!
We moved here for other reasons, too, but economic necessity was at the top of the list.
What I don’t see, over and over again, on these health-care threads is a convincing argument that the administration proposals will reduce the cost of medical care in general. We argue past each other. The major problems are what happens to the unemployed and those with pre-existing conditions. Solutions targeted at solving those problems would be good. Why are massive new regulatory systems and intrusive bureaucracy required?
Further, to actually address the topic of this post, I don’t see why “conservative Christians” or “liberal Christians” need to be taking a position on the proposals in general. Why is the Episcopal Church leadership pushing this bill? Other than abortion, and that is a topic which has theological dimensions, this is not a subject on which the faith gives clear answers. We have to use our judgment as to whether this is a wise and effective policy proposal, assuming it could definitively be stripped of public funding for elective abortion.
49. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]I hate to break the news to you, amigo, but “from each according to his ability…†ain’t Adam Smith. [/blockquote]
Yes, I’m aware that Adam Smith was a mercantilist who believed that the goal of nations was to accumulate the maximum amount of gold bullion through limiting imports (read protective tariffs) and maximizing exports. The theory does, of course, suggest that “each” should produce the maximum goods and services so as to maximize that balance of trade by maximizing internal trade and goods for export and minimizing reliance on imported goods.
It is also true that the early church in Jerusalem was a communist commune. (See Acts 2:44.) Of course there were problems. (See the account of Ananias and Sapphira who wanted to hold back from the common treasury (Acts 5) and about the distribution of goods (Acts 6:1-6).
Jesus talked about the need for his followers to care for the sick, the homeless, the poor, the stranger and the weak. It is true that he laid that on as kind of direct responsibility of his followers–he doesn’t seem to have envisioned any sort of “charitable organization” to which his followers contributed their shekels and denarii which in turn distributed to those deemed qualified. It is also true that he didn’t talk about government intervention. Realistically that could only be achieved at the time by violent overthrow of Imperial Rome–something that would have been certain to fail. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to envision any sort of government “of the people, for the people and by the people. He wasn’t a Democrat or a Republican; and the government of the future he envisioned was an absolute monarchy–the kingdom of God.
Jesus also seems to have had some radical egalitarian ideas too. For example in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, the householder gives each laborer a denarius (approximately a day’s wage for laborer in that day–a sort of minimum wage) regardless of whether the worker labored all day or just one hour. (See Matthew 20:1-16)
And then there were the prophets of the Old Testament, who had a great deal to say about those who put their own comfort before that of others. See, for one example, Amos.
[blockquote]Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel come! … Woe to those who lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the midst of the stall; who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp, and like David invent for themselves instruments of music; who drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph![/blockquote]
The apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome,
[blockquote]Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)[/blockquote]
I am quite aware that Paul is directly speaking about obedience to the civil authority, about the subject’s relationship to the ruler. But consider what he says about the ruler.
If in our form of government the “authority of government” rest upon “we the people” then “we the people” bear that authority from God and “bear the sword” on God’s behalf to do his will. And if God cares for the sparrow, how much more should we care for “he least of these my brethren” (See Matthew 25:30-46) using every means at our disposal, not just individual charity, but that sword of government which God has given us.
Someone said “The country that totally transformed the home computer industry and cell phone industry in 20 years could make our current system seem antiquated and primative in another 20 years if we let the true entreprenues loose.”
I can’t let this stand without challenging it. Back in the 90s, I had a job that involved lots of travel to the UK, and it was undeniable that the US was in the stone age as far as cell phones were concerned. We may have invented some of the technology, but many places were way ahead of us in adopting and using them (partially because other countries coordinated companies through regulation, while we generally adopted a laissez faire on standards and so on). Actually, it was not unlike health care — people with lots of money who spent most of their time in big cities had a cell phone experience almost as good as the europeans.
By now, I’d say we’ve just about caught up to the rest of the wealthy nations in our cell phone experience and cost. And that’s all I’m hoping for (and way more than I’m expecting) in health care!
53. Katherine wrote:
[blockquote]Further, to actually address the topic of this post, I don’t see why “conservative Christians†or “liberal Christians†need to be taking a position on the proposals in general. Why is the Episcopal Church leadership pushing this bill? Other than abortion, and that is a topic which has theological dimensions, this is not a subject on which the faith gives clear answers. We have to use our judgment as to whether this is a wise and effective policy proposal, assuming it could definitively be stripped of public funding for elective abortion.[/blockquote]
See my recent post to Jeffersonian on this subject.
Those Christians who live in democratic countries do have a fundamental right and opportunity to steer the ship of state. The idea that a Christian should somehow separate his faith and its moral duties and obligations from his role as citizen of a secular state and its duties and obligation would be one that I think the apostles, prophets and Jesus would have found incomprehensible.
Christian “leaders” either “conservative” or “liberal”–no matter how kooky they may be, still have the responsibility to try to lead. And, of course, the individual Christian still has the moral responsibility to discern the spirits. “I was just following the leader” isn’t a valid justification unless [i]des fuhrer[/i] happens to be God.
Incidentally, I would observe that your wish “assuming it could definitively be stripped of public funding for elective abortion” is an example of a Christian’s application of Christian doctrine and discipline to secular policy decisions. I think that it is possible for Christians to disagree as to whether or not this is a “deal breaker”–that an otherwise good health care bill would be anathema. You may feel that it would be. I might respectfully disagree–that “half a loaf” while not perfect is better than “no loaf”. We as Christians would still be a position to help women understand that what is growing in her womb is a child of God and deserving of her love and protection and that she should not elect to have that child killed. She is still morally free to make that decision.
I would also add that we as Christians who oppose the killing of unborn children of God should also support that woman who chooses life over death by insuring that she, whether rich or poor, receives good and adequate medical care both before and during the child’s birth, and that she and the child have access to good medical care, nutrition, affordable day care if she is a working mother and education as the child grows to the fullness of adulthood which God intends.
And yes, if the health care bill forced any pregnant woman to abort the child for any reason, I think it would be a deal breaker. But I don’t think the proposed bills in Congress do that.
Ken Peck, I think you may misunderstand me. I do think that, as a Christian and a citizen of my country, I have a responsibility to take my part in the decision-making which our system permits. I don’t see where, except for a few issues like abortion, the church leadership is called to express an opinion on whether the secular proposals before the Congress are wise or unwise. Church leadership is no better qualified to make that call than anyone else. In the case of the Democratic health-care proposals, I don’t think they are “otherwise good” bills. I think they would have a negative effect on the cost and quality of health care in our country.