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
2 comments:
Very interesting! I hadn't realized that this is going to be a hot topic in the next election.
I think that the first article is pretty ridiculous. I agree that his claims are quite unfounded, as seen through England's success with universal health care (and his unbiblical approach). And really, if you look at the rising prices of healthcare in this country, the system will blow up soon anyway (people cannot afford to keep paying more and more, and what are we really getting for our money?). I, for one, would love to not have to worry about that expense. it's the single biggest unjustified expense that it is in our budget.
I think it's interesting that he seems to completely endorse capitalism as an economic system. Yeah, it works to a point, but that's because it appeals to man's most basic sin: selfishness. At best, we are inspired to do our own work to get the things that we need - clothing, food, etc. But at worst, the drive to fulfill our selfish desires will effect a self-centered, socially destructive lifestyle.
-Brad
Well, as C. S. Lewis would say, this is where we want the Christian economist.
Looking at this from a socialist v. conservative viewpoint is somewhat helpful, but we have to look at it from the financial aspect as well.
The United States and the United Kingdom's economies and systems of government are different. I don't think you can really make an apples-to-apples comparison between the two, tempting as it is.
In the United States, however, we have some real economic problems coming at us.
(1) 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.
(2) Government derives the bulk of its income from taxes. If tax revenues are not sufficient to cover the costs of government, then it must borrow, and pay interest on what it borrows. It can also attract foreign investment in business and infrastructure; however, it has to give up something to get this investment, and when the investment is no longer attractive to the investor, the money is pulled out. As much as we all dislike paying taxes, it is far better for a country to be financed by its own citizens rather than by tons of debt and foreign ownership of businesses and infrastructure.
(3) 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.
(4) The Boomers are on the cusp of retirement. Many will continue working, however, many will not. As these people leave the workforce, you will have less and less people paying taxes to support more and more people receiving Social Security and Medicare. You probably already know that there is deep concern over whether the Social Security program will be able to handle the strain of the increased expenditures.
(5) Even those who have saved for retirement are finding that the funds they have saved are insufficient to meet the growing expeditures they will have. Everything from heating oil to nursing homes has gotten much more expensive.
(6) 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.
So, the economic picture is not looking good at the moment. The government is already in deep debt, the taxpayers are strained to the max, and we'll be seeing a decline in the number of taxpayers simply due to the generational bump of the boomers.
So, the question really is:
***** How do you think the US government is going to pay for the cost of universal health care? *****
Where is the tax money going to come from?
Will we have to go even deeper into debt?
What would make a country largely composed of aging Social Security recipients attractive to investors?
Will we need to scuttle the Medicare and Medicaid and other existing programs and start fresh?
Is it time the insurance companies took a good look at their operating expenses and costs, and start trimming a little bit?
Does the cost of some of the medical technology available exceed the benefits? You have to quantify this in some way. Just because a technology exists does NOT mean that it should be funded. If one person in 500,000 will be helped, is that enough to justify it? Remember, someone somewhere is paying the bill.
It is sad to see all of these Internet discussions on the pros and cons of socialized health care, among intelligent, well-informed people, many of whom are Christian, most of who are missing the point completely. Providing quality health care at an affordable price can only benefit a government, a country and its people. But, at this point, in the USA, there is no way to justify the economic impact that would result from taking this program on, in addition to all of the other debts we have.
The Lord God has a lot to about debt and proper money management in the Bible. We are encouraged and commanded to give of what we have freely to those in need. God loves a cheerful giver. This is a Christian virtue and models what the Lord Jesus Christ did on earth. Nowhere does the Bible say that we should go into debt in order to help others. The stress is on giving of what we HAVE. If Christians want to make a difference in the area of providing affordable health care, the places to start are with our own abilities, possessions, jobs, professions, families, etc. If we are in the political or civil service arena, let's give of what we have to start changing things for the better, for God's glory. The answer is not more debt and more taxes for an already struggling economy.
Post a Comment