Don't be deceived by any talk of, "let's do whatever works as it regards healthcare." No mere survey of the facts will tell us what the "right" thing to do is on a national scale as it regards healthcare. There are only two camps: both are informed by idealogy. There is the camp that says the government could possibly do a better job than the private healthcare industry and there is the camp that says the government could not possibly do better than the private healthcare industry. I am of the latter opinion.
You can get the information at a different source more capably, I'm sure, but let me outline the basics. Many democrats insist that a public option can be revenue neutral with premiums. The public option really just provides competition to the insurance industries. But the essence of a public option is that it's financed by the public. Okay, so I can keep my insurance if I like my insurance, but my tax dollars, whether I like it or not, will contribute towards the public system. Note: this isn't competition, it is coercion and an unfair advantage in the market place. Hospitals, doctors, and yes, even insurance companies don't get to receive tax dollars in this fashion, and so competition isn't really provided (and Amtrak, the US Postal System, and the DMV all make me think that the government doesn't run things well anyways).
Why does this matter? Why tow the conservative line on this when this blog is supposed to be about the Christian worldview? Because Christianity in all its forms rejects statism.
I can understand the compassionate impulse of many Christians. More people are cared for under universal (or almost universal) healthcare. This is a Christian good, right? Well, perhaps, but it's misguided.
It's misguided because a public option, or whatever nod we give in the direction of increased government-run healthcare, is coercion and not compassion. I can still hear the doubting, though. Even if it's coercion, how is this a bad thing?
It's a bad thing because Christianity rejects statism in all it's forms: the Roman empire, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Fascism, and Communism. Whether we call these regimes conservative or liberal, they have the same characteristic in common- their belief that the government is the solution to all individual, social, economic, and political ills.
N.T. Wright has a saying about the book of Romans. You see, Paul was insidious in his subversive rhetoric against the Roman Empire. In the letter written to Christians in Rome- the center of the empire- Paul continually notes that Jesus is Lord. Why does that matter? N.T. Wright says because if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not.
Now the Roman Empire was much more down the line of statism than the US is (Caesar thought he was god, after all). But the idea that it's the state's responsibility to provide healthcare and that it's a citizen's right to receive it is a scary crawl in the direction of statism.
That is why we should be wary of any increased power of the federal government, even if it's healthcare. Bush did it his way. Obama's doing it a different way. We should always be wary.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
4 comments:
Dave - I'm trying to go a step deeper on a number of points here. For starters, let's take the statism argument. What makes it inherently statist to promote legislation that taxes citizens for the good of the general population?
For instance, if I were trained in combat arts and kept a semiautomatic pistol on my person at all times, I might say, "I don't need the police." My city government would nonetheless tax me and use that money to fund the fuzz. I would whine, maybe hold a (peaceful) protest rally, and in my case, their taxation would be coercion. But does that mean the taxation is statist? Is it possible for a non-statist to think that the state is the most effective organization to address some social, economic, and/or political ills?
What if the real problem is not the taxation but my whining? What if I could learn to be a cheerful giver... of my taxes?
You know I lean in the direction of fiscal conservatism when it comes to most industries, but I'm not sure health care should work the same as furniture or frozen pizza.
This brings up another point in your argument - you start by saying "the government could not possibly do better than the private healthcare industry." This is, in one way, a pragmatic argument against a public insurance option, but you then go on to try to reject the public option on matters of principal. If your rejection is based on pragmatic concerns, give me pragmatic reasoning; but if the only reasons for your rejection are based on principal, don't make it sound like you have pragmatic reasons to reject the public option as undoubtedly ineffective. On the other hand, your opening statement has made the opposite error from statism - "marketism," I guess you could say. You seem to be asserting that a private healthcare industry is always the most effective kind of healthcare industry. How is that not creating an idol out of the free market?
Clearly I'm rambling all over the map, which is the greatest sign that I'm currently at a point of disequilibrium and reconsidering my own assumptions. Help me out...
I will agree that it is not the state's responsibility to provide healthcare for all, but I am open to the idea that the state should work for the common good when it is within reach. I also agree that it is no person's right to receive healthcare, but I sympathize with the compassion that says, "I want to leverage my tax dollars to provide healthcare for all as a public service."
Question (in my stream-of-consciousness comment posting): do OT laws about caring for the poor, orphan, widow, foreigner, etc. come with any teeth? That is to say, could one be punished by the state for not doing those things, or did the state not have that power?
I suppose if they did not, one could make the argument that the state should never enforce, require, or programize (new word) any charitable works, but only encourage them. Of course, if one were to take that angle, one would have to encourage the abolishment of, say, 65% of our national spending, the majority of public services, etc.
Clearly I'm still confused and in need of a dialogue partner. Oh brother, where art thou? :-)
Hey Ben,
I was out of town.
Generally I write blog posts fairly stream of conscious, so your posts come with glee. Also, you did well to note my pragmatic/ideological inconsistencies, which could be ironed out with more time and organization.
Basically, in my reformed view I think the government can arbitrate or adjudicate justice but it shouldn't be the dispenser of justice. As in, it's not up to the government to provide or take away, but it is up to the government to adjudicate discrepencies in justice. Thus, I think a federal government can be in the business of making war with other nations, with setting down civil rights laws where there is injustice in the private sector, or labor laws where there is injustice for children, overtime, etc. This is adjudication.
But when the government starts providing these services in order to outpace what it defines (for itself) as injustice, then I am opposed to the money it gives from it's budget. Basically, in this instance, the federal govt. generally and arbitrarily decides what it's own form of justice is and gives it away. See H. Schlossberg on this- Idols for Destruction- the chapter on the idol of mammon.
As for your OT question, it's a good one and I don't have time to answer it. I do believe this view is biblical and fits w/ OT forms of justice- arbiter but not dispenser.
But notice: in the prophets, national governments are condemned for idolatry, for the taking of ministry, and for the direct abuse of the poor. I think I could make an argument that handouts (old forms of welfare, medicaid, and medicare) are sometimes harmful and a direct abuse of the poor. This would require, though, a much better exegesis of these social programs than I have time for at the moment.
Blessings!
Post a Comment