I try to monitor journalism with a discerning eye and ear, and I am assuming you do also. With the recent media spotlight on our President's agenda to socialize health care in America, I have been forced to (again) ask a series of important questions related to this hugely important issue, and to try to cut through the sound-bite rhetoric coming from alarmists on both sides. On some media outlets, commentators are demonizing our president's plan - suggesting that his motives are a calculated and sinister move toward Marxist ideology. Others embrace such an uncritical acceptance of the plan that one would think the Messiah had arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
As a Christian who believes in limited government and human freedom, I struggle with the idea that higher powers (elected or otherwise) should be able to take money from wealthy people to re-distribute it to the poor. To me, stealing is stealing. Yet on the other hand, I believe that whatever limited government we do have must be compassionate and should seek to keep the playing field as level as possible without punishing higher achievers. There seem to be no easy answers here - as much as either extreme would suggest there are.
If this proposed health-care initiative is signed into law, will the lack of a competitive market eventually lower quality of care across the board? It seems to have done so in nearly every other society or spectrum in which it has been attempted. Why is it that - with the rare exception of those seeking alternative or experimental treatments not offered in the U.S. - virtually NO ONE from America leaves the country to seek the services of foreign health care when being treated for serious illness? On the contrary, why do tens of thousands annually travel to America from other countries in search of the excellence of our services and specialists? Certainly our current system is imperfect - but these questions should shed light on where we are by comparison to other developed countries.
I pray for our President regularly - and I have never known a President (whether Republican or Democrat) whose policies I have been 100% in agreement with. So my issue here is not to impugn the motives of our nation's leader. But ideas have consequences. After all, this would be the largest economic and societal re-structuring of America since the New Deal. Only 60 years after F.D.R., we see what a STELLAR job our government has done in managing social security! If they cannot be trusted to manage such as simple retirement strategy, can they really be trusted to manage something as morally nuanced and financially complex as health care? I only hope that our house and senate do not rush this bill through without weighing EVERY potential consequence. I also pray that journalists would begin reporting the details of this plan to Americans in an unbiased fashion - both pros and cons - so that people can contact their representatives to let their voices be heard (well, you can always dream, can't you?).
Other important questions include:
1) Is it true or untrue that health care is a basic human right?
2) What can we learn from the disastrous stories of Canada, Europe and other socialized systems in order to safeguard our own?
3) Is it really honest to claim that people will still be able to "choose" to keep their current insurance plan - if over time the government puts private insurance carriers out of business by drastically under-cutting their prices?
4) And perhaps the most important question - can we really call something a human "right" if the government has sovereign control over it or can take it away at its discretion (say, for example, dictating who gets what services and when)?
I will close with the following and then invite YOUR comments. During ABC's Town Hall meeting awhile back, the President was asked by a woman about her 105 year old grandma. Five years earlier, the grandmother had been told by one specialist that her heart condition wasn't worth trying to "fix" at her age. After a second opinion, she was given a pacemaker and is still thriving at 105. The President was basically asked what would happen in such a situation under socialized health care. Would her mother have been pushed to the back of a waiting line or told "no" in regard to the surgery due to the needs of someone "younger" or more "deserving"? I sat there thinking to myself....where in the heck AM I? Cuba? Nicaragua? North Korea? I never thought I'd see the day when an American citizen would have to ask her President whether her mother would be allowed to fight for her life! What do you think? Is this a hill worth dying on...or a slippery slope that will eventually kill us? Your thoughts?
Just a few things:
ReplyDeleteThere is no denying that everybody has the right to life. Whether or not this means everyone has the right to health care is something I'm still thinking about.
The fact alone that other people come to this country for health care shows that the US is doing something right, granted we are not doing it perfectly.
I'm curious to know how the president responded in this specific case about the woman's 105 year old grandmother, because it will shed some insight on what the president expects that his socialized health care program will accomplish.
Oh, but contrar, Mr. Bond. ;-) our government does not believe that everyone has the right to life. Our government sanctions and pays to have 3,000 Americans killed a day. The innocent one who can't even run away to safely because they are locked in their mother's wombs. Gov. Health care will fund that totally. So do u think they will want to spend money on old frail Grandma?
ReplyDeleteThe President's answer was shocking. You can probably find his exact words on Youtube, but I'll paraphrase here. He basically said that in her case, it may be more expedient for old grandma to take a pain pill than to get the treatment she was seeking! What does THAT tell us about the socialist view of the sanctity of human life? It tells us that according to this world view, whenever a person becomes "inconvenient" they are worth less than someone deemed more "profitable" to keep around. Disgusting! Who makes that call? Under socialized health care, it will likely be an un-elected board of advisors rationing and stipulating who is eligible for what services and when.
ReplyDeleteWhen Canada first made this ideological shift in health care, their people were told by their leaders that they would have a "choice" to "keep their current plan" if they liked it. Sound familiar? Yet - after only a few years - there no longer existed a legitimate private option because those companies had been forced out of business. Without competition providing the incentive for excellence, the quality of health care has dramatically decreased in Canada! I can hardly believe that this disaster has happened right across our northern border, yet many seem too blind or unwilling to take a close look.
Add to that the fact that members of the British Parliament such as Daniel Hannan are BEGGING America to stay away from socialized health care after having grown up and served in a country that has employed such as system for 6 decades! In a recent interview, Hannan was asked why he was so passionate in vocalizing his hopes that America would reject such as system. He simply replied, "Because America is our friend. Whenever a good friend is about to make a really bad decision - the right thing to do is warn them."
I agree that there are reforms to make in American health care - but forcing the 80-plus % of Americans who are happy with their coverage to suffer with eventual lower standards and rationing does not seem "compassionate" by any stretch of the imagination. There HAVE to be better alternatives (and there are). Why do victims of heart-disease and breast cancer have a four-times higher rate of survival in the U.S. than in Britain? Simply because competition drives excellence. As flawed as our system is - it is the best in the world? Why would we want to emulate systems that are proven failures? These are questions it seems that every American should be asking.
What we never hear is that of the 35 million Americans in the category of either "non" or "under" insured, about 1/3 of them could afford it but choose not to have health coverage - and another 1/3 are younger people who choose to buy only catastrophic coverage because they are young a relatively healthy. This is a choice my wife and I have made during various times of our life. Of the few million remaining, how many COULD afford coverage if they were trained to live on a budget? How many live unhealthy lives of dietary or substance addiction that if eliminated through spiritual and emotional training and healing, would reduce their need for expensive plans?
i certainly don't have all the answers, but I've got a lot of questions that socialist ideas have not been able to satisfy for 100 years of history now. Thanks for the comments, guys. I hope others will join in! I truly want to learn from the perspective of others.
Thank you Pastor for your un-biased, fair, and wise facilitation of this discussion that is truly bathed in love and mercy.
ReplyDeleteAugust 1, we will have to pay a lot of $ for health care. I am in favor of health care reform. It isn't fair that circumstances beyond our control can make it difficult to obtain access to quality health care.
This is the United States of America, land of the free. Good health care is a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't believe this is how it should be.
Prescription-drug costs are out of control. People are having to choose between food and their prescriptions. In general, the cost of health care is out of control. Some people work two and three jobs in order to have health insurance. There are millions of Americans without health insurance. The cost of going to a doctor is so high many Americans don't even bother until it is often too late.
Dr. Howard Heft founder of ConMed [a manufacturer of medical equipment] said:
"Health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others."
Of course, I don't have all of the answers either, but I do believe that this administration is trying to address the problem of health care [I don't trust YouTube].I also believe that competition will make the system better. The very fact that the insurance companies are spending 1.4 million dollars daily lobbying congress should raise many red flags.
Around 40% of the insurance companies' operating budget goes to "Administrative Costs." While only 2-3% of Medicare's operating budget goes to "Administrative Costs." I think it is time for insurance companies to stop the huge bonuses they have ENJOYED for a very long time.
I believe we will still be able to have the "second opinion." I believe that is a right as an American. I don't believe the term socialized medicine is accurate, though. Health care reform is what America needs...and I hope that will include a "Public option."
So, I think grandma would still get her pacemaker.
Again, I am in favor of "Health Care Reform." I will also continue to pray for our president and our great nation.
Thank you,
Sam West
Sam,
ReplyDeleteYou raise several legitimate concerns. Of course I could never argue against your reasoning from the standpoint of your personal dilemma. It sounds like you are really feeling trapped, and I would never judge your feelings under your current circumstances. Please keep in mind as I share a few thoughts that I do so attempting to look at the bigger picture - and not so much as a criticism of you as my friend and brother in a tough situation. Forgive me if anything I say seems cold or indifferent, as my responses are more focused on the greater good of society rather than your personal situation. In my opinion, both are important.
One of the dilemmas of living in a sinful world is that we are often forced to choose between the good of the whole versus the good of the few. God has provided enough resources for everyone on the planet to live lives of abundance, but selfishness and sometimes laziness keeps that equitable sharing from happening - and government programs run primarily by non-Christians will never change that.
The most proven (albeit imperfect) system for the betterment of mankind as a whole is a free-market economy encouraging competitive excellence. To my knowledge, there is not one solitary historical example otherwise. I'm no economist or scholar, but I am a serious student of history, and I welcome anyone to demonstrate a better scenario than a free-market economy for obtaining this.
I have numerous friends who grew up in places like Soviet Russia and other socialist environments who can testify of the eventual atrocities inherent in socialist systems. When our president publically comments on who deserves to live and die, we are CLEARLY heading in the wrong direction. When our nation's leader feels ill-equipped to make a comment about abortion during the Rick Warren interview because morality is above his "pay grade", I cannot help but feel sick to my stomach.
I appreciate and agree with your premise of being for "health care reform" - but at what cost to the good of a free society? I do not believe that health care is a "right" any more than I believe that having food is a right. People should have the right to earn money to buy food and other provisions on a playing field that is as level as possible - even both Testaments of the Bible concur with the reality that if you don't work - you don't eat.
What we are really discussing here - in my opinion - is an issue of compassion. It is not the role of federal government to force citizens (even the rich) to pay for the needs or desires of others. As Christians, we DEFINITELY believe in our responsibility to assist one another. I've been preaching on that for 6 weeks from Acts 2. My wife and I demonstrate this conviction in the way we live our lives and handle our finances. I will continue on the next post so I don't run out of space here... :)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteThe fact is you don't even have to be an American citizen to be guaranteed health care in this great nation. Just ask the dozens of major hospitals that have been forced to shut down in our border states because of their ethical and legal requirement to treat even illegal aliens. My point is that as imperfect as our system is - we stand at the very top of the list as the most compassionate and ethical health care system in the world - not to mention the most competent. That is precisely because of a free-market system encouraging fallen man to reach for his best - even if the motivation is financial.
We already have public health care readily available. Nobody can legally be turned away at any emergency room. An ambulence MUST respond to every emergency call. Programs like Medicaid, Healthy Families and AIM already exist to provide all basic health care needs at little or no charge. I realize that there are a handful (and I mean a handful) who slip through the cracks. And YES - we need to address those with responsible solutions - not because health care is a human right, but because we want to be a compassionate nation with founding documents based on the Word of God that help us to eventually self-correct.
It is not compassionate to use the Robinhood philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Giving is the job of individuals, churches and charities who would have s lot more to give if the government wasn't already yanking 20 - 60% of the income of working citizens. It was Catholic and Protestant churches that were responsible for nearly ALL of the social services in our nation - and they did a wonderful job - until federal beurocracy decided they could do it better.
Proponents of socialized medicine will often mislead people about Medicare overhead amounting to only 2-3% but it is simply not true. The reason this stat is thrown around is because not all medicare personnel compensation is included in the "administrative expense" monies applied to that program by the federal government. If Blue Shield or virtually any private insurer were to subtract the cost of their employees and personnel from their administrative overhead figures, those numbers would be around the same percent if not LESS than Medicare. It's amazing how efficient Medicare can make itself appear when they have no goal or obligation to turn a profit and they are spending other people's money.
Thanks for considering my opinions, Sam. You are a great brother - and fun to engage with on these things! At the end of the day, we may just have to agree to disagree about this stuff - but if you're willing to continue conversing, perhaps I can learn some things from you. If I am out to lunch here, I truly AM open to being corrected. These are deeply moral issues that have lasting ethical and economic consequences. I don't want my great grandchildren paying for our mistakes. In the last six months our deficit has grown from $400 billion to $1.4 trillion. That number is so staggering that the average person has to really stop and contemplate it in order to have any impact.
Please remember that I'm not just spouting theory here. I have been without adequate health coverage numerous times in my adult life, yet even during the 90's I spoke and prayed vigorously against the Clintons' plan to socialize medicine simply because I felt I had no right to mandate that someone else take care of me. I know that there are those who need medication, etc. who have slipped through the cracks. So let's focus on correcting that rather than making everyone suffer. Even Rahm Emmanuel was recently caught in the admission that our President's plan to assure everyone that they can choose to keep their plan is the first step needed to go in the direction of total socialized medicine. The radically leftist worldview of the admistration is beginning to seep out - and I wish that our President would keep his promise to govern from the center like he said he would.
The most current form of the healthcare bill now has specifically added funding for abortion. Is this something that we should support? What role has God called each of us to play in this process?
ReplyDelete