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 CareIf 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
