Health care, continued

I know you're all probably more interested in seeing how Olivia's doing more than anything I have to say. My teaching job has finished now, and I will find time to get some pictures up this week!

I just received a very interesting comment on my post regarding the possibility of a national health care system, an issue that has already been raised by the democratic presidential candidates. I don't think I know who the commenter is, so I'll assume it's a well-spoken Christian on the web who has time for these discussions with strangers :) I want to respond quickly, in case (s)he (but I'm guessing he) checks back.

I encourage you to read his response here, but I think I can summarise it by saying that he believes question is not about the desirability of a national health care system, or even whether or not it is possible in general (since it works in other places), but that it is not possible at this time in the US because of impending fiscal thunderclouds approaching. In his words, "we have some real economic problems coming at us." A partial list includes: the national deficit, already high taxes, the baby boomer retirement, increased cost-of-living, and general public apathy.

I find this quite interesting. My original post was aimed at conservative Christians who do not believe that social services should extend beyond private, charitable giving (while simultaneously believing that the US is somehow a "Christian nation.") The mystery commenter's thoughts, however, imply that, given a balanced budget, (remember those days??) universal health care could be both morally appropriate and financially feasible. As he says, "Providing quality health care at an affordable price can only benefit a government, a country and its people." Somehow I doubt that this point is as self-evident as we both would wish! I still believe that the main debate among Christians is about the moral value of such a system, rather than the specific applicability within the US in the next decade or so.

Nevertheless, his comments touch on a broad range of subjects that I think are interesting to pursue. Here we go...

Most working Americans are already paying a fortune in state, federal, local and property taxes, Unemployment tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, nuisance taxes, sewer taxes, school taxes, etc., etc., etc.

Add to this the burden of private insurance!

Now imagine that burden of insurance replaced by a system in public control, with those who are more able picking up the slack for those with less. There's no guarantee that it would be more financially efficient; but it couldn't do much worse! It's weighted to benefit those who need it most, and law-makers are held accountable by the taxpayer for every dollar spent.

The United States currently has a MASSIVE deficit and a negative balance of trade. The personal savings rate of the average American is also a negative number. In other words, not only are we not saving, we are going further and further into debt individually.

This is, of course, distressing. By the way, I wish there were references for these numbers, especially about personal savings. It's never good to throw unqualified numbers around.

One would think that this would cause those in government, especially in a "conservative" administration, to a) carefully prioritise national spending, and b) encourage self-restraint among the public. How strange then, that one of Bush's most consistent messages in the past 6 years is for people to spend more, shop more, buy more (one example here here). And national spending? The war in Iraq alone has cost $500 billion so far (reference here, and you can check their sources). Let me repeat that: 500. billion. That's not the "War on Terror," just Iraq. So frankly, I don't want to hear people whining that it's just not possible to give every American access to a doctor.

I told you it was a broad range of subjects :)

You might think that all of the above items would cause Americans to become more involved in "the system" to straighten things out. That's the way democracy works. But, just the reverse is currently the case. Less and less people vote in every election. Less and less people understand civics, history, or how the democratic system is supposed to work. They are apathetic, hopeless, or simply not interested. People are greatly distracted by their techno toys in the USA today. They care more about American Idol than about the American Future.

This is an interesting trend, and hard to deny. Perhaps we have progressed from the deification of the state to the deification of the self. If so, what are the possible future implications of that? How might those in power manipulate the worship of self to further a social agenda?

Is the Church providing an alternative to the idols of state and of self... or has it already capitulated to both? What might a truly Gospel alternative actually look like? Would it confront society head-on, or simply bear witness as an alternative community?

What does any of this have to do with health care?

These things will continue to turn over in my head in the coming year. I am torn between being a concerned (though absent) citizen and leaving the faith-informed politics scene altogether. When democrats say that their Lord "is very important" to them (Edwards), and republicans that faith informs some, but not all, of their decisions (so what, like 80%?) (I forget who said that), what's the use? How can I expect a secular nation to think humanely about health care or foreign policy, or be surprised at the current inhumanity of both?

Life goes on, and we wait (wisely or foolishly?) for Resurrection.


-Chris

Smiles all 'round

Coming up on Olivia's 2-month birthday next week, and enjoying the company of Melissa's mum. Melissa's Aunt and Uncle also visited on Tuesday.

We're both a little crazy, but trying to have fun as well. I'm in between starting one job and finishing another, so I'm doing twice as much work as usual... not to mention composing and my other job... so there probably won't be any blog dissertations for a bit. Maybe that's a good thing?

Anyway, enjoy the pictures.

6 week check

Hello Everyone

As promised there are more pictures to post. Olivia is now 6 weeks and 4 days old. I can't believe how much she has changed. She is holding her head up off the floor and smiling and we even heard a laugh once. There is always some new cry or gurgle. My mom is here to enjoy her and experience all those things with us.

I have been at my wit's end with feeding though. Olivia just feeds all day long and I felt like I couldn't get a break. The health visitor who comes to the house was worried about her weight gain as she was only gaining 2-3 ounces a week. We have been getting differing opinions from different health visitors and were very frustrated. Olivia was constantly fussy when not feeding and it was a struggle to get her to sleep. The health visitor suggested to "top her up" with formula and we all thought it was a good idea. We went to her 6 week check at the doctor's yesterday and Olivia had gained 1 whole pound in a week. She now weighs 9 pounds. She also gained an inch in height, I guess this was her 3 week growth spurt 3 weeks late. I was very shocked that just topping her up with formula would pack on that much weight. I have to say she looks healthier and is less fussy and has more happy alert times, so it was worth it. It also gives me a chance to have a break and have Chris feed her. Last night she slept from 9pm until 5am and then again until 8am!!! We all felt better this morning. Right now it is 8pm and my mom is feeding her and we are hoping for the same tonight. Below are some pictures.

p.s. Chris is making doughnuts from scratch and they are freakin' awesome! see you soon

Love Melissa

Universal Health Care

Hi everyone! Things are well in the Bryan family, especially as Melissa's Mom is here visiting. We'll have more pics online soon... promise!


Last week I managed to catch the first debate between democratic presidential candidates, and am looking forward to hearing from the other side in a month. I wanted to take a moment here to highlight what I predict (and hope) will be a central topic in the 2008 election: universal health care.

Specifically, I'd like to examine the debate on this issue from a Christian perspective. Hopefully my non-Christian readers may also be interested to catch a glimpse of political disagreement "on the inside." More than ever, we are not a monolithic voting bloc!

There are two blog posts, the second responding to the first, that I would like to point out, and I highly suggest you read both in their entirety:

"Universal health care -- Unbiblical socialism"

Christian Faith and Universal Health Care

If you simply stop here and read the articles, that's fine by me. Think about how your own view (and vote) on this issue is guided by your moral principles. For myself, I largely agree with the second article. I can't offer much more in the way of biblical argument; however, living in a country that does provide basic health care to all tax-paying residents, I found some of Creech's fears quite unfounded, which I will point out below for anyone interested. Of course, I can't resist some general commentary as well...

Most Americans are completely unfamiliar with what the Bible teaches about economics.

I think we can all agree on that...

But even if every person currently paying taxes were willing to pay an extra $500 a year, that wouldn't begin to cover the great costs involved in such a program.

Really? Without breaking down our paychecks, I can safely say that we pay equal or less taxes here than we did in the U.S.: which is quite nice when you know that basic health care is thrown in. I couldn't tell you why, but there it is. And I've never heard anyone wish for privitisation, but I can't tell you how many people have said the opposite.

It would outlaw private health insurance ...

This is also not the case here. The well-off are free to purchase health insurance from private companies, which is in addition to their coverage under the NHS.

... and give government bureaucrats the exclusive right to set reimbursement rates for physicians, clinics and hospitals. This would not only create supply shortages, but would also likely produce a black market health-care system.

I can't say either of these are a significant problem here.

It would destroy professional freedom for medical professionals. The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.

This does seem to be a problem here. However, the democratic process means that pressure is on policy makers to find a solution. Unlike a private system that exists solely for the "bottom line," the NHS is compelled to serve the best interest of the public. Isn't this how a health system should operate?

Children with gestational issues of retardation, spina bifida, etc. would likely require abortion.

This has never happened here. Conversely, the knowledge that your hospital will be open to you, that you will receive regular checkups, attend birthing classes, and have a health professional visit your home during early days of parenthood (without paying out of pocket) does give low-income and single moms the confidence they need to go through the process without aborting their child. Having just gone through "the system," I can say this with confidence: it means a great deal! As someone who is strongly pro-life, I support a national system in the U.S. as an effective way to reduce abortions.

Instead of providing good health coverage for all, it will ultimately lessen the quality of care for all.

Tell me, how do you get less than none??

On the flip side, for the well-off, anything can be purchased. I can't see the problem.

"There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government."

And yet, walking between these extremes is what the western world has been doing throughout modern economic history.

Whatever the solution, any plan fostering more dependence on the government is not only extremely dangerous, but immoral. Perhaps the country would do well to consider the warning of John Cotton, a founding father of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: "Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content that they shall use, for use it they will."

I get the feeling that the author thinks that the U.S. is some kind of totalitarian regime. A federal health care system puts power in the hands of elected officials who are answerable to voters, the very people who use the system. On the other hand, a private system gives that power to profit-makers who have no accountability to the general public.

Two questions:

1) Which would you prefer?
2) Which better serves the less fortunate?

I expect you'll hear more from me on this in the future.

-Chris