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
