Most Americans are completely unfamiliar with what the Bible teaches about economics.
Universal health care, or government-funded health insurance, is a major issue early on in the presidential campaign. North Carolina's former senator, John Edwards, has been stumping for it in his platform for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also a candidate for the presidency, has been pushing for it as far back as when her husband, Bill Clinton, first became president. It's also been a burning issue for state governments such as California and Massachusetts. Even a House Select Committee, in a state as conservative as North Carolina, has been studying the California and Massachusetts models of legislation with the prospect of making an attempt at providing universal health care for the Tar Heel State.
The prospect of government-funded universal health care, however, is another example of America's departure from its strong Judeo-Christian roots and its love affair with socialism. Most Americans are completely unfamiliar with what the Bible teaches about economics. And progressive churches have, unfortunately, dominated the scene by espousing a form of economics comprised of essentially socialistic principles with a religious veneer. One might even argue the church's loss of influence today is due in part to its support and advancement of the welfare state, which by government pre-emption has siphoned away the church's energy and resources for charitable purposes.
While a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll finds a majority of Americans now say the federal government should provide health insurance to every American, there are strong indications that many who declare their support for government-funded universal heath care fail to understand what it would entail. The poll found "[s]ixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes . . . Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more." But even if every person currently paying taxes was willing to pay an extra $500 a year, that wouldn't begin to cover the great costs involved in such a program.
The Bible teaches God is a creative and productive being and man, who is made in His image, was created for the same. Economic systems that perpetuate or construct dependence or reward sloth strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. Thus, the apostle Paul admonished the Thessalonians: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10) Certainly, those who cannot provide for themselves, despite every effort they can summon, should be helped in the form of charity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that ingenuity and industry are what should be rewarded, while laziness or failure to provide a service the public needs should go unrewarded.
What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced. Therefore, the image of God in man — his creativity and productivity — is suppressed, while those who are indolent prosper.
What is more, socialistic principles fail to take into account man's depravity — his fall away from God and into sin. The socialist contends if man's environment is changed, he will change. He'll be better to his neighbor. It discounts man's need for redemption in Christ and contends that if all have an equal share, then there is less reason to war and steal, etc. But the fact is socialistic principles change nothing about human nature and only concentrate economic power in the hands of a few sinful individuals who are more able to exploit the public.
Sven Larson, a policy analyst for the John William Pope Civitas Institute, notes all the ways these negatives would play out in a government-funded universal health care system, which is simply a form of socialized medicine.
- It would outlaw private health insurance 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.
- It would transform the state into the sole purchaser of medical drugs and equipment, hampering cost containment and inviting corruption.
- It would destroy professional freedom for medical professionals. The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.
- It would of necessity cap health spending. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, American health providers increase medical technology by 7 percent per year. Such increases are necessary if new technology is to make its way into hospitals and clinics. If the cap for a government-funded universal health-care system like the one proposed in California had been enacted nationwide in 1960, the cumulative effect would have been to lower current technological standards in hospitals to 1982 levels.
One can already see how liberty and justice, which are unalienable rights — God-given rights — are significantly diminished by such a proposal.
Most importantly, since a government-funded universal health-care system would come at a heavy financial burden to the state, one could only imagine how, over time, it would affect right-to-life issues. It most certainly would make abortion and euthanasia readily available. Children with gestational issues of retardation, spina bifida, etc. would likely require abortion. Vulnerable patients such as the chronically ill, disabled or elderly would be allowed to die as in the Terri Schiavo case, or possibly even terminated.
A government-funded universal health-care system will never provide what its champions promise. Why? Because socialism never provides what it promises and neither can socialized medicine. Instead of providing good health coverage for all, it will ultimately lessen the quality of care for all. As Ludwig Von Mises wrote in Liberalism, "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." Is the incompetence of the government in responding to the needs of Hurricane Katrina victims so soon removed from America's memory that it's now willing to place its most personal issues — health-care issues regarding quality of life, life and death — into the hands of a federal bureaucracy that would be approximately three times the size of the Pentagon?
Larson rightly argues, "America has the largest private health insurance market in the world. If allowed, this market could provide universal health care for everyone by meeting every need and every budget." He rightly suggests that one key improvement would be to remove the coverage mandates that states impose on private insurance plans. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, there are 1,843 coverage mandates in the U.S. "Coverage mandates are sometimes called 'consumer protection,'" says Larson. "But because coverage mandates increase the cost of insurance they actually force many families to go unprotected by shutting them out from affordable health insurance plans." The answer lies in reducing the cost and stimulating competition between the insurance companies, he says.
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."
This column first appeared on WorldNetDaily and is reprinted here with permission.
Well done.
It certainly feels good to say that everyone should have healthcare paid for by the government, but it is quite another thing to actually consider the ramifications of such an ill-conceived idea.
The government has yet to solve any problem with a program. It simply mucks things up, and steals from individuals the opportunity to be personally compassionate.
There are those out there who believe it is the Christian thing to do, but at the same time decry those who violate the “separation of church and state” on other issues. They view government as a tool to achieve their social aims, and distrust individuals to do the right thing.
There is another difference between socialism and Christianity. Christianity tells us to recognize the needs of our fellowman and give generously, even sacrificially, as God moves in our hearts. Socialism imposes this externally.
Christianity says, “If you have two cows and see your neighbor hungry, won’t you give him one of yours?” Socialism says, “Comrade, you have two cows. We will take your cows, and here, take this loaf of dry bread.”
Profit or Greed?
It is no large matter
to see through the veil,
the immoral motives
of those whose who avail,
to judge for themselves
our interest and need.
Through every concoction
they hope to succeed,
to blot out from reason
“Profit or Greed?”
PROFIT = economic gain from what you own, produce or control (capital) by free exchange. This is the prime directive of capitalism and the nature of a (true) market economy.
GREED = economic gain from what others own, produce or control by coercion. This is the prime directive of socialism and the nature of a (false) political economy.
There’s a lot of anxiety about health care in this country that I think has been popularized by the Left to instill a mindset of fear. The simple fact is, the Left is trying to make charity compulsory. Socialized medicine is not much different from other welfare programs in the sense that attempts to force a redistribution of wealth on the assumption that such a redistribution cannot occur naturally through private sector initiatives.
An interesting post that remains relevant today. Not being a Christian, I could care less about what the Bible says about healthcare, but your point is interesting. I’d counter that socializing healthcare socializing other economic sectors because ‘health’ isn’t a commodity. In any other arena, true, socialization produces inefficiencies that destroy motivation, profit and wealth. Allowing treatment on the basis of profitability is the true definition of evil.
A woman I know who has very bad problems with her shoulders, lives in constant pain for which she must take medication, and cannot hold a job for any length of time because too often the pain or dislocations make her unreliable. This woman is very proud, and has never gone on public assistance of any kind. Her dream is to get shoulder replacement surgery, so that she can live pain free, get a job and become a productive member of society again. But this won’t happen as long as for-profit insurance can deny her care because of her “pre-existing condition.” Single payer or even mandated insurance would have been a life-saver for this young woman. Instead, her health will slowly deteriorate as she pays out of pocket full-price for the medications that barely make her day livable. This is not civilized. This is not Christian.
Why are people equating UHC with charity and/or socialism? Is paying for the military charity? How about the fire department or the EPA or the school system etc.
It’s not charity people! It’s a basic human right! All of the other developed countries recognize that. I would think that especially those who regard America to be a ‘Christian Nation’ would be ashamed of that. For no other reason than Christians think of themselves as the most charitable people on the planet.
Please don’t give me the yea but it’s impossible argument…many, many, other countries do it much better than we do. It’s a matter of priorities. Health insurance companies have no business being ‘for profit’ institutions, neither does your fire department.
“Is paying for the military charity?” Greg, if you are going to try to make a comparison, your criteria needs to be applied to each side in the same way:
1) the military is authorized by the Constitution.
2) funding the military does not transfer wealth from one citizen to another.
3) the military does not set up a class of citizens that are entitled to benefits, or attempt to change social outcomes.
“It’s a basic human right!” Your declarative statement does not establish fact. Make you case and we can discuss it. Otherwise, all I am required to say in response is “no it’s not!”
Regarding your “Christian nation” remark, are you suggesting that the wall of separation between church and state be dismantled? I thought imposing morality was wrong?
“…Christians think of themselves as the most charitable people on the planet.” They do? Please cite your evidence. Forgive me for quoting the Bible, but Jesus teaches just the opposite: “…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.”
Beyond that, you opened your remarks by claming UHC was not charity. Now you are calling upon Christian charity to bolster your case. So, which is it, charity or not charity?
I have not seen anyone give a “yes but it’s impossible” argument. Again, cite your evidence. As far as what constitutes “better” health care, that is a value judgment that requires us to not only evaluate the other health systems for cost, but level of care rendered, waiting times, and mortality.
Beyond that is trickle-down factors like productivity, strengh of their currency, unemployment rates, tax rates, personal wealth, and a whole host of other economic factors. In other words, what did they have to give up to get UHC? There is no free lunch, Greg.
Lastly, health insurance companies are private businesses, not defacto arms of the government. Fire departments are government entities. Health insurance companies do not exist for social purposes, or to further the quasi-fascist social aims of government. They exist to provide a product that people will buy, and to make a profit doing so.
Greg, no offense intended, but I would suggest that you try to improve your thinking skills, because although you appear to be sincere, you don’t seem to grasp basic logic and reason.
Sorry oh wise Mountain Man..offense taken. Nice how you picked the military example and none of the others. Fire and police services, the EPA, and many other things financed through taxes on the general population are not transferring wealth, neither would UHC nor should it be singled out to be defined as charity.
As far as biblical references go, do you really think you made a point with that one out of context quote? Please.
Are you really prepared to argue that things like free speech, gun ownership, the right to an attorney, the right to confront your accuser, to self protection, etc. are rights but health is not? Just because it’s not mentioned specifically in a 200+ year old document proves your point?
Most Americans also feel they have a ‘right’ to clean water and clean air without thinking it has to be specifically mentioned in the constitution. Is making companies stop dumping pollutants into the nations waterways a transfer of wealth too?
Almost anyone would gladly give up any of these constitutional ‘rights’ in exchange for health. What good are guns without health?
The Christian Nation comment was a leftover from a different discussion with someone else who insisted that the U.S. was founded to be basically a Christian Theocracy and that Christians were more charitable than most.
My argument to him was that if Christians are so charitable, how can they stand by while 45,000+ people die each year in the U.S. (not to mention the bankruptcies) due to lack of access to health care? That works out to more than a 9/11 every month! However, it does not mean that UHC should in any way be considered charity.
As far as ranking our health care system, there are more than 30 other countries with better outcomes (quantifiable, not a value judgment) but yet we spend nearly twice as much per person AND fail to cover about 10% of the population. All the trickle down factors in the world are not going to make that look much better.
Also, of ALL the other developed countries with private health insurance companies, NONE are for profit. That’s a big part of the problem and maybe even the core problem. Would you want your fire department to be for profit? How about the police department? Is that a free lunch?
It’s all about spreading risk, not charity. Everyone needs to be in the risk pool, originally a republican idea for personal responsibility (ie: no free lunch). Now it’s somehow unconstitutional to these same people.
Insurance companies really have no incentive at all to provide for preventative medicine. You are likely to change jobs and be covered by someone else by the time you develop problems due to lack of preventative care. Worse, they just have to keep you relatively healthy until they can pass you off to Medicare.
All due respect, I think I have a much better grasp of logic, reason, and thinking skills as well as a more thorough understanding of the issues surrounding health care. You seem to be attempting to defend an indefensible position because you can’t seem to open your mind to any opposing ideas and consider them rationally.
Sorry you were offended. It needed to be pointed out that your post was not reasonable. Nevertheless, I will attempt to continue dialogue with you.
You write, “Nice how you picked the military example and none of the others. Fire and police services, the EPA, and many other things financed through taxes on the general population are not transferring wealth…” I did not claim these were transferring wealth.
There is a difference betweeen transferring wealth (the forced transfer of money from someone who earned it to others who did not) and charity (the voluntary giving of money to another as an act of compassion).
You really need to improve your reading comprehension, sir. “Transferring wealth” was my criteria, introduced to you in my previous post. You used the term “charity.” You conflate the spending of tax money for any reason to justify spending on UHC. This is a Category Error.
There may or may not be constitutional problems with any number of services provided to people via taxation. We can argue as many of these as you want. But first we need to have a basis of understanding. That is still lacking from you.
Out of context? You claimed that “Christians think of themselves as the most charitable people on the planet.” I pointed out that Christians make no such claim, and in fact are instructed to give in secret.
You write, “Are you really prepared to argue that things like free speech… etc. are rights but health is not? Just because it’s not mentioned specifically in a 200+ year old document proves your point?” This is a Non Sequitur.
First, your criteria was “human right.” Now you are discussing constitutional rights. Second, I made no comment regarding other rights, constitutional or otherwise. Third, I make the same point again that I made before: claiming something is a human right is not the same thing as proving it.
“…if Christians are so charitable, how can they stand by while 45,000+ people die each year in the U.S. (not to mention the bankruptcies) due to lack of access to health care?” Looking in vain for this argument in your prior post. First prove that Christians are standing by, given the thousands of Christian charities, hospitals, and ministries. Almost every hospital I see is “Sacred Heart” or named after some saint. To suggest that Christians don’t care about the sick is a Strawman.
How about you? Tell me how much money you have sent to charities to help sick people. What are you doing right now to make a difference for some of the 45,000?
“…but yet we spend nearly twice as much per person AND fail to cover about 10% of the population…” Who is “we?” You and me? The government? Oh, and I am wondering, since obamacare will only cover 95%, and doesn’t fully kick in until 2019, are you as outraged at your fellow leftists?
“Would you want your fire department to be for profit? How about the police department?” Another Non Sequitur. The existence of other government entities or spending programs does not justify adding another.
(continued)
“It’s all about spreading risk, not charity. Everyone needs to be in the risk pool…” Why is spreading risk good? Why is having everyone (or 95%) good? Be careful with your answer.
“Insurance companies really have no incentive at all to provide for preventative medicine.” This is just plain ignorant. I apologize, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Insurance is based on the concept of indemnity. Indemnity is the exchange of valuable consideration in order to lessen the risk of financial loss due to a covered peril.
I contractually exchange my relatively small premium for the insurance company’s promise that if a covered peril occurs the insurance company with pay for that expense according to the terms of the contract. That is, if something bad happens, they pay.
This has absolutely nothing to do with preventative medicine. Preventative medicine is a 100% potential for loss and is not insurable. Your insurance does not pay for you to paint your home or change the oil in your car. That is your responsibility, as is preventative medicine.
“…because you can’t seem to open your mind to any opposing ideas and consider them rationally.” Open my mind means agreeing with you, doesn’t it? The fact that I disagree with you means I have a closed mind. What I have or have not considered has not been discussed, so I wonder how you know what I think.
“…as a more thorough understanding of the issues surrounding health care…” I doubt that. In fact, I dispute that vigorously based on what you have presented so far. I am a licensed insurance agent with 24 years of experience. What are your credentials?
Sorry Mountain Man, I’m going to tap out of this thread. You’re just a little too goofy for me and it’s already been a waste of my time.
I certainly believe that you have been a licensed insurance agent for 24 years. Would you believe that I’m a university professor teaching logic and debate in the mid-west?
Unfortunately, I would believe it.
OMG. He TEACHES logic and debate? That is really scary.
By the way, Greg. It was you who came here to waste your time, no one forced you.
Rather than address any issue I raised, he departs with a final ad hominem. Perfectly fits in with the high skills of a logic and debate professor.