Peter Heck - columns - Jesus the Socialist?

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, August 30 2009

Jesus the Socialist?

At a recent Congressional town hall meeting I attended, I was astounded by the positions being taken by the outnumbered group of advocates for socializing American medicine.

The Founding Fathers - a group whose distrust and skepticism about the size and scope of the national government is epic - were surely doing back flips in their graves as seemingly intelligent Americans willfully stood up and championed the notion of handing over their healthcare to bureaucrats in Washington. Regardless of your political leanings, it was a chilling sight to see a group of citizens standing and applauding the loss of their own freedom.

But more bizarre than that was a sign that had been placed on a pro-ObamaCare table near the front of the stage. It simply read, "Jesus would vote yes."

Now, I should preface these remarks by acknowledging the possibility that I misunderstood the sign. A listener to my radio show suggested to me that perhaps "Jesus," pronounced "Hay-Soos," was referring to an illegal immigrant who would undoubtedly vote in favor of a plan guaranteed to further saddle American taxpayers with the burden of paying for those unwilling to obey the law. But with as thoughtful as that insight is, given all the recent attention the left has been showing Jesus the Savior recently, I think it's fair to assume He was the intended reference.

There are a couple initial observations that need to be made before we address the core, "Jesus as socialist" madness. First, for a movement so petrified by any perceived confluence of faith and politics, the left has kicked the Bible-banging into high gear recently.

Liberal talker Ed Schultz called socializing healthcare a "moral obligation" and said Christian ministers, "should be leading their congregations to support this president on healthcare reform." What?! I thought we weren't allowed to "legislate morality?" And haven't folks like Schultz been telling ministers for years to avoid politics in the pulpit, lest they violate the sacred "separation of church and state" doctrine?

But even President Obama got into the act. Convening a group of ministers on a conference call, the president told them that his healthcare plans accomplish the, "core moral and ethical obligation that we look out for one another...that I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper." He went so far as to suggest those who resist his plans are "bearing false witness" against him. Thou shalt not oppose thy Obama.

Frankly, I welcome this discussion. It is important to be conscious of what Jesus would do, and it's encouraging that even those on the left who reject His teachings and commands at least acknowledge His character and testimony. But all of us should tread very lightly when it comes to putting words into Jesus' mouth. No matter how long and close of a relationship with Christ one has, we should be beyond cautious (and painfully aware of our own fallibility) when it comes to any attempt to speak for Jesus beyond the plain words of Scripture. When in doubt, let the red letters speak for themselves.

For that reason, it has never been my contention that Jesus would have opposed a socialized healthcare bill in the United States. That certainly doesn't mean He would have supported it; rather, that the ministry of Christ was undeniably focused on the individual - our personal responsibilities, not the duties of civil government.

To take those personal commands and extrapolate outward until you encompass a government mandate is the height of irresponsibility and demonstrates a contempt for the sanctity of Scripture.

Ed Schultz went on to state, "When Jesus walked the face of the earth, He was feeding the hungry, He was clothing the poor, and healing the sick. He didn't ask anyone for their health insurance card. And He didn't heal anybody for profit." Well that's true. But for the sake of making a political push, Schultz is utterly distorting Christ's work.

First, Jesus performed His miracles of feeding the five thousand and healing the lepers to foster belief in His claim to be the Son of God. Second, He performed such acts to model personal compassion for us. If Jesus was really teaching that taking profit for one's work is evil, we all have some serious problems...including Ed Schultz. Schultz gets paid nice money for enlightening those who gather to hear him speak. But Jesus never took a penny for His teaching. By Schultz's logic, apparently the only profession that can rightly charge for their work is carpentry.

This torturing of the text is exactly what happens when we let our politics inform our faith, rather than the other way around.

Here's what we can know: Jesus commanded His followers to "do for the least of these." He commanded us as individuals to be generous, giving, compassionate, and charitable. What remains for us to decide is whether turning over those personal responsibilities and making them the domain of the federal government is the best way to fulfill them. If experience is any guide, the answer to that question is incontrovertibly, "no."

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 04:10 pm | Permalink | 93 Comments | Email

Comments:

I completely agree with all that Pete says. The Sermon on the Mount was given to individuals, not the government. One more thing must be said in order to keep miracles in perspective. The miracles in the New Testament were done in order to authenticate the message of the Gospel about Who Jesus is and what He came to do. Likewise, the miracles performed by the Apostles were done to show people that they were speaking for God.

Posted by vcamatt on 08/30/2009 17:44:26

Kudos to you, Mr. Heck on this very well written piece. I am impressed you didn't fall for the trap of condemning the left for putting words into Jesus' mouth, but then doing it yourself. Very mature, very thoughtful, very cautious. That shows a strong allegiance to the Savior you serve. And yes, vcamatt, you are correct as well in keeping "miracles" in perspective. They weren't magic tricks.

Posted by JB15 on 08/31/2009 23:03:02

First, those claiming that Jesus was a political socialist need to demonstrate from his words and actions where he commands or even implies the use of government force to compel compliance with his teaching. Second, those who wish to impose Jesus' ethics as government policy are going to have to consider the broader picture as well. After all, he does not speak kindly to adultery, divorce, and even the use of courts. Interesting, is it not, how theocratic the left has suddenly become?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/01/2009 07:45:46

Couldn't disagree more with Peter and the two posters. National Health Care is consistent with Christian Virtue. I am sure that Peter and the two posters have Health Care Insurance. Many of my friends do not. You are already on a "health care lifeboat" from the Titanic and telling those in the water to go somewhere else. Nice Christian message guys!!

Posted by Guitarmeister on 09/01/2009 07:45:46

Is this not the same president who said we are no longer just a Christian nation. Making fun of the Bible including the sermon on the Mount, and now he is using it to convience the very people he mocked into his health care plan. The sad part being that there are Christians out there beleving it, and even pastors uot there preaching it from the pulpit. It is time Christians wake up and stop leting our freedoms slip through our fingers.

Posted by Phillip Moore on 09/01/2009 10:54:13

You are being ignorant or intentionally obtuse if you don't think Jesus would want everyone to have basic health care. As you mention "Christ was undeniably focused on the individual - our personal responsibilities". John 13:34-35. That is why it is a moral choice. Period. There is nothing evil about earning money, but the current situation is highly inequitable, excludes many of our fellow men in need and is unChristian.

Posted by hellbender on 09/01/2009 15:19:18

Jesus was not a capitalist and no matter how hard you try to justify capitalism in His name, you sound like an idiot doing so. To purport that Jesus would have been okay with sick and dying people being turned away from hospitals and losing their homes in order to pay for cancer care is ridiculous. Jesus would in no way support the evil and dishonest heath care insurance providers we have in this country. Reform and change is desperately needed, as soon as possible, and if you think otherwise you have no idea what is going on in this country.

Posted by Susan on 09/01/2009 17:31:23

Who exactly is the government if not we as individuals? Who has the power or the money to effectively care for those less fortunate if not the government? Which denomination of Christs children has ponied up to take over the health care system? Instead of your tired rhetoric perhaps you could offer a solution instead of just crying the sky is falling everytime someone wants to make a change to the good ole boys club. Maybe if you spent less time belittling your fellow man and focused more on your "calling" you could seperate yourself from your Glen Beck-Rush Limbaugh clone mentality and get back to the bible you so lovingly proof text as needed.

Posted by bg72 on 09/01/2009 20:38:54

bg72, could you explain how Peter 'proof texted' the Bible?

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:35:43

What an insulting and ignorant post, Guitarmeister. You assume that those who oppose the notion of socializing (thus ruining) America's health care system are in favor of killing people? No irrational leap of logic there. Chances are that Peter and others are far more charitable than you. What a nice Christian message you're spreading: "I don't want to help you personally, so I want to use the power of government to confiscate money from others to do it." Could you give me a book, chapter, verse for that Christian virtue?

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:38:38

Hey hellbender, where did Peter say that Jesus wouldn't want people to be cared for or to have healthcare? He didn't. He actually made the argument that the best way to achieve that was NOT through giving the government control of the system. Why don't you NOT put words in his mouth and then argue with those words?

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:40:30

Susan, get off your highhorse and try thinking. It would be a challenge, I know. 1st: 'no matter how hard you try to justify capitalism in His name, you sound like an idiot doing so' Uh...did Peter argue Jesus was a capitalist? No. 2nd: 'To purport that Jesus would have been okay with sick and dying people being turned away from hospitals and losing their homes in order to pay for cancer care is ridiculous' Uh...did Peter argue that Jesus (or Peter) was okay with that? No.

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:42:48

3rd: 'Jesus would in no way support the evil and dishonest heath care insurance providers we have in this country' Uh...did Peter ever argue that Jesus would support evil and dishonest health insurance providers? No. 4th: 'Reform and change is desperately needed, as soon as possible, and if you think otherwise you have no idea what is going on in this country' Uh...did Peter say that no reform was needed? No. In fact, he's said a number of times that there need to be changes made...but giving up our freedom to put the government in charge of it is not going to improve, but rather demolish our healthcare.

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:45:04

While we're at it, bg72: 'Maybe if you spent less time belittling your fellow man' Uh...who did Peter belittle? 'Which denomination of Christs children has ponied up to take over the health care system' Uh...why do you think anyone needs to 'take over' the healthcare system? What makes you think that charity will not or could not work more effectively than a government program? Let me ask you this: if you want to help your fellow man, do you go through a local charity or do you write a check to the government? Enough said.

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:48:02

A bit of advice for all of you from bg, Susan, Guitarmeister, and hellbender: perhaps you should take on what Peter actually said and quit setting up straw men and attacking Peter personally just to soothe your own convicted consciences?

Posted by Darius the Mede on 09/01/2009 23:49:51

Darius the Meade: Peter's entire essay was a criticism of people openly making the connection between the Christ's teachings and how they can be manifested in the form of basic health care for all. His argument against following Jesus' teachings of generosity, giving, compassion and charitability in this particular instance is his contention that Jesus wasn't concerned with "the duties of civil government". He erroniously extrapolates this to mean that Jesus would not engage the idea of a *government-run* socialized medicine because it involves the governement (btw, covering all citizens by definition is "socialized medicine" and there is no other kind of socialized medicine than gov't-run).

Posted by hellbender on 09/02/2009 04:45:24

to summarize: ostensibly, what Peter is saying is that because Jesus didn't specifically speak out on government health care, we shouldn't either and that we should rather maintain the status quo (which prevents many from receiving care) and reject the only option that potentially ensures care.

Posted by hellbender on 09/02/2009 04:47:00

A question for all who believe supporting government health care is a moral obligation. Why do you assume that those opposed are not willing to help those in need? Independent research has demonstrated consistently that conservatives are more generous and giving regardless of demographic background. Conservatives believe that people, not government, is not only the best way to meet needs in society, but it is also a personal obligation. If people are freed to care for their neighbor, they will do so to a much greater degree and more efficiently than a bureaucratic system.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/02/2009 12:33:57

What is ignored in the equation is the sense of entitlement that is created in any government run program. It ultimately leads to resentment and/or abuse by participants and frustration of the rest for being forced to support a failed and/or inefficient system. I believe obligation to help your neighbor is 100% biblical. Having the government do it for you is not.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/02/2009 12:34:17

Susan, guitarmeister, hellbender, bg, & any others disposed to push for government-mandated health care: As I have already mentioned, if this healthcare bill is to be supported on the basis of a Christian doctrine (viz a viz, the moral imperative of compassion), then does it not follow that ALL Christian doctrine should be reflected in our national policies and laws? The point that seems to be made by those in disagreement with the article is that Jesus would support the passage of a government-mandated healthcare bill.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 12:57:38

However, I find no Biblical support that Jesus spoke in favor of government-mandated anything. If you have the support, please cite it. Now Jesus did use some strong language to denounce sin, including, but not limited to, self-righteousness, religious hypocrisy, theft, deceitfulness, idolatry, adultery, and divorce. Likewise, Jesus used some strong language to reveal himself as the Son of God, which meant that he claimed deity. He claimed to be the prophesied Redeemer (Messiah, Savior) for the world. Moreover, he claimed to be the ONLY way to the Living God (John 14:6-7).

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:07:48

Therefore, the only way that Scripture such as Matthew 25:31-46, which has been bantied about lately by those supporting the government take-over of healthcare, makes any sense whatsoever is in the context of Jesus' claim of deity. If his claim is accepted, then followers of Jesus are compelled to follow this teaching. However, if his claim of deity (& consequently Messiahship & Lordship) is rejected, then there is no compelling reason to accept and apply Matt. 25 or any other New Testament verse.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:12:38

Hence, those who advocate that Jesus compels us to submit to government-controlled healthcare must also answer to the other moral imperatives that Jesus requires us to obey. If Jesus would have everyone comply with a moral imperative of paying for the so-called access to healthcare for all regardless of their specific religious belief, then we should legitimately require compliance with the moral imperative of refraining from adulterous behavior and of divorce. As is being argued by advocates of healthcare "reform," morality can, indeed, be legislated.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:21:15

So, as soon as adovcates of healthcare "reform" are willing to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ (that is, divine Savior), then we can proceed with the discussion of what is or is not Jesus' take on the topic.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:21:56

Besides, empirical evidence demonstrates time after time that if we want to truly help the poor and reduce poverty, the worst way to do it is through government mandated programs. Example: (1) goal is to reduce homelessness; (2) impose rent control laws; (3) unable to return even a modest profit and meet expenses, landlords flee rent control districts; (4) loss of available rentals results in more homelessness;

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:26:02

(5) government takes over & provides housing to poor; (6) even government must pay costs to own property & homes, so taxes for additional revenue; (7) increased tax burden deceases business activity, further depressing the area; (8) resulting in more homelessness. Why is it so common for the volumes and/or tons of empirical evidence demonstrating the harm caused by government intervention to be ignored?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/02/2009 13:29:20

Mr. Peter Heck is a visionary, and he should be respected.

Posted by BLtennis on 09/03/2009 09:25:41

Asburystrider: if your statement about people caring for other people to a much greater degree and more efficiently than a bureaucratic system were true, there would be no need for health care reform... and there clearly is. I don't people getting sick so they can "take advantage of the system". That hasn't happened with medicare any other socialized health care program in the world. And FYI: we already have a bureaucratic system called insurance.

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 03:29:05

First, you didn't answer my question. Second, there most certainly would be people taking advantage of the system. Ask anyone who works specifically with Medicaid and the indifference some families have towards medical expense is shocking. On one point we actually agree. There does need to be health care reform, and I see a lot of flaws with the status quo. The problem, though, is that the current system is rigged so that true free market principles can't operate. Additionally the amount of litigation and money spent on lawsuit prevention accounts for an enourmous amount of health care cost. Let's start with TORT reform and getting rid of red tape before we add another layer of lawyers, bureaucrats and regulation.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/04/2009 15:15:16

And FYI: "The system is bureaucratic so let's let the government take over" is about the most non-sensical argument to come out of the health care debate that I've come across. Please, if we're going to talk reform let's at least use some common sense here.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/04/2009 15:23:24

ChuckChants: perhaps you are confusing compassion with control. As Peter points out Jesus instructions were a paradox as He instructed us as Christians to be compassionate. At the same time He advocated acceptance of others - this is above everything else except loving him. It is our duty to be compassionate. Legislating health care is being done so out of compassion and is congruent with Christian morality. Its pretty clear. Your subjective ideas of what else should be legislated sounds like control. Again as Peter points out, that's for us to tackle as individuals.

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 15:34:16

ChuckChants: that's a single, biased, hypothetical example of gov't involvement. First of all, we're not talking about helping just the poor, but rather everyone - particularly middle class people that go bankrupt after falling ill. Second there are loads of successful gov't programs that enhance our country: FBI, CDC, DARPA, USDOT, USDA, NASA, US Treasury, and on and on. Why is it so common for the volumes and/or tons of empirical evidence demonstrating the enhancement of our country by government programs to be ignored?

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 15:51:25

Asburystrider: i personally didn't answer your question because i'm not questioning anyone's *desire* to help their fellow man. We're discussing our differences of opinion on how to accomplish that. with that in mind, developed countries that instituted socialized medical programs tort reform became obsolete in many cases because the incentive to file suit (like acquiring medical cost payment and an emphasis on liability) evaporated.

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 19:39:45

Asburystrider: No one is arguing "The system is bureaucratic so let's let the government take over". I was responding to your statement "If people are freed to care for their neighbor, they will do so to a much greater degree and more efficiently than a bureaucratic system." I was simply pointing out that health care already operates in a bureaucracy, so that's not a valid argument to oppose gov't control.

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 20:01:57

What i'm saying is that we ARE and HAVE BEEN free to take care of our neighbor... we are the freest nation on Earth.... and yet we still find ourselves in this predicament of not everyone being able to access essential health care at all or without going deeply into debt. So somehow i don't think that's the answer. Universal healthcare is a way we can take care of our neighbor in a unified (and therefore more efficient) way that is consistent with our Christian values of care and compassion.

Posted by hellbender on 09/04/2009 20:05:14

If you want to talk about empirical evidence of why government run programs are ultimately a disaster look no further than the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. It ultimately goes back to the question of what the role of government should be. Government's role as envisioned in our founding was to ensure rights of the people. The examples you give are indeed examples of this (FBI, CDC, USDOT, etc.).

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/05/2009 13:49:58

Where things go amuk are when government takes the next step in attempting to do what people and groups ought to do themselves. Welfare is a disaster. Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and increasingly top heavy. Social security is a ponzi scheme. Subsidies to farming, labor, and education do nothing but raise costs. If you look at where money goes, it goes to building up failing businesses or individuals and taking from those that succeed. If we're talking empirical evidence, it points to the horrible inefficiency of government programs, not their success.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/05/2009 13:50:27

I'm glad you're not questioning motives here. Unfortunately this is a common tactic on the left and calls such as "Jesus would be for socialized medicine" is an increasingly common way of vilifying opponents. To respond to your point, the benefit of reducing litigation through government control is more than made up for the decline in quality care and the increase in red tape and top down ineffecient micromanagement of care. If we agree that health care is already bureucratic, why not work to reduce the bureucracy rather than instituting more? The truth of the matter is that the bureucratic nature of insurance companies comes in large part from national and state regulations.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/05/2009 15:51:45

While I would agree that we are a relatively free nation, I would disagree with the assertion that we have been adaequately given the freedom to take care of the needs of our neighbor. When government takes from us we are less free to use the fruit of our labor to benefit others and/or ourselves (which indirectly will benefit others through purchase of goods and services). Additionally the assertion that there are those who do not have access to health care is simply not true. This is not opinion, this is fact. Noone is currently denied essential health care. To your final point, please point to me any governmental effort into the private arena where the net result was a more efficient, more effective enterprise.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/05/2009 16:00:16

Asburystrider: the foremost right the Founding Fathers were interested in preserving is the right to life (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness). What better way to ensure that than through health care for everyone? Sure... things sometimes run amok when gov't steps in... but those cases you listed are cases where "free" people failed to take care of their fellow man. Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare are there because of the failure on the part of "free" people to create a solution. But with that in mind, private ventures fail more often than they succeed that health insurance is a case-in-point example of that.

Posted by hellbender on 09/05/2009 16:16:30

Hellbender, I understand that many Americans are concrned with being compassionate to others. Through laws, policies, and programs, can government deliver the compassion its citizens desire? History demonstrates that it is possible. History also demonstrates that there are many, many factors that determine whether it is probable or not. There are many historical and contemporary collectivist governments that I would not label compassionate. Are there American government programs that have worked? Yes, but the most successful are the most limited and focused in scope. Those you mentioned above do not hold a candle to the scope of government control being proposed and enacted now.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:03:04

I am authorized to use the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system. I openly state that I consider any care I have received through VA quite adequate. But there are real limitations. There is much less choice of providers and clinc/hospital locations available. There are fewer choices of prescription medications available to providers to prescribe. In fact, every system user has to receive indoctrination on the use of a pill splitter because of the limited number of meds carried are larger doses that are split by the user for smaller doses. Just a few of the idiosynchrosies of this government healthcare program.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:13:53

Regardless, of examples of successful & unsuccessful government programs, the article is about compassion and Jesus. Are Christians compelled by the compassion instructed by Christ to favor this massive government healthcare program? I note that you have yet to provide any source indicating that Jesus instructs or implies that any government be the tool to implement the ethics and morality he instructs. As such, Christians are under no compulsion to favor government bureaucracy as the means through which compassion is delivered. There are many ways that compassion can be delivered through free market economy means.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:22:57

One of the biggest lapses in your logic is indicating that government-run healthcare is not control. The HR bill is all about control from its very beginning. It will control the type of insurance available. It will control healthcare choices available to American citizens. In all likelihood, it will control salaries of healthcare professionals (cost containment). The obvious list goes on and on. Your support for this type of massive government healthcare indicates that you are willing to surrender to the government quite a few liberties. Not everyone is so willing.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:29:19

Another fallacy in your logic is that of "accepting others." The acceptance that Jesus advocated was that no individual was prevented from entering the Kingdom of God because of economic stature, gender, race, or any other cultural distinction imposed by man. What Jesus did not advocate is acceptance of sinful behavior no matter who is behaving disobediently. Outside the vital framework of confession, repentance, and salvation, compassion makes no sense. The suffering and resurrection of Christ saves us; compassion does not. Indeed, there is no compassion outside of the salvation through Christ.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:42:38

If it is moral according to the Christian faith to legislate compulsive government healthcare (which will certainly control even more of the resources of American's citizens), then it follows that it is just as appropriate to legislate the whole of Christian ethics and morality. What makes this whole matter entirely ridiculous is that those advocating this healthcare bill as an act of Christian compassion is that they are not committing themselves to Christ to control their actions, but are comitting themselves and others to a government to control their actions.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 21:57:53

As has been said already, you and other supporters of this are willing to make a significant surrender of liberties for the hypothetical return of more accessible, more affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, these experiments in other countries have not panned out too well for the most part. Oh well. BTW, my example of government involvement is not hypothetical. It has been repeated nmerous times in numerous countries. Source: Dr. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/05/2009 22:00:25

Ah, Thomas Sowell. Basic Economics ought to be required reading in schools. Hellbender, you're right in that private ventures fail. But it is failure that says what does and does not work. 90% of businesses fail within 5 years. But we don't have 90% unemployment. Those who succeed are the one in ten who manage the growth, learn from mistakes, and remain cutting edge. When government fails, it just takes more money to cover the loss. When you apply it to health care, you get systems like the UK. Sure everyone's "covered" but the care is shoddy at best. There's a reason why people come to the US for treatment and not the other way around.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/06/2009 12:33:43

Yes, i am aware to Thomas Sowell and am also aware that his arguments of Canadians coming to the US for medical care are based completely on elective procedures (surgeries that are not medically necessary). The fact is that in 2003 the US spent $5,711 USD per capita on healthcare with an enormous number of people not cared for, while Canada spent $2,998 USD per capita and managed to cover all of its citizens' basic health care needs. But then if we are basing our arguments placing economics above compassion we have strayed from the original discussion and lost sight of what's important.

Posted by hellbender on 09/06/2009 19:05:40

ChucksChants: If you go back to the beginning of Peter's column and read through it and the comments to here again you'll find that i, like Peter, haven't claimed that Jesus advocated for government anything, but Paul's letter to the Romans (Chapter 13) reveals that Jesus didn't think gov't involvement is inherently evil or is something to be avoided. Paul points out that taxes and gov't services are simply part of life and it's enhancement.

Posted by hellbender on 09/06/2009 19:19:01

ChucksChants: You said: "What Jesus did not advocate is acceptance of sinful behavior no matter who is behaving disobediently." What? Who said it was acceptable? My point is that if you are truly a Christian that is not your job (John 8:2-11). Your job is to love God and love others as you would yourself.

Posted by hellbender on 09/06/2009 19:33:39

Asburystrider: You said: "Sure everyone's "covered" but the care is shoddy at best." Not true. I've had the good fortune to travel the world a bit and see these alleged "failures" and know first-hand that they are nothing like the horrible situations anti-reform advocates make them out to be. In fact, right now i'm in New Zealand where they have a socialized medical program. It's fantastic! Everyone is covered. After countless interviews (even with some kiwis that lived in the US) everyone seems pretty happy with the system here. The ability to acquire needed medical care when needed doesn't send people into bankruptcy. Even if i get injured while i'm here as a visitor, then i'm covered too.

Posted by hellbender on 09/06/2009 19:45:29

There's an excellent article in the Washington Post written by Arthur Feldman. Feldman is a cardiologist for the Jefferson Medical Center and he points to ten problems with the current proposal and offers suggestions as to what should be included in real health care reform. Just so you know, he starts with insurance companies (an element of insurance that I believe does need addressed). It's an excellent piece and I believe he has a lot of good suggestions for what is very much needed in the health care reform debate. The article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402274.html

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/06/2009 23:40:22

Again, you're not dealing with my question. We aren't talking about satisfaction. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about reform here. Most people are satisfied with their health care system, even in socialized nations. The real issue is quality of care and meeting needs, and if you compare our current health care system with those of other nations, ours is superior (though certainly not perfect). So again, it goes back to which is the best means by which to improve the current system. So again I ask, can you please point to an example where a government program enters the private arena and creates a more efficient, more effective system?

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/07/2009 13:55:44

"Placing economics over compassion" is a false dichotomy. This isn't an either/or deal. In fact, 99% of the time benefiting others economically will result in a greater likelihood of compassion. When you increase the size of the pie, you're more likely to have leftovers.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/07/2009 13:57:04

Something that has been left out of this national conversation: what source confirms that the current healthcare system is not compassionate? I have made a lot of visits to hospitalzed patients for many years. I have visited a lot of folks with great coverage, and I have visited folks who are indigent. I have never seen anyone not cared for. Anyone needing to be in ICU is there; anyone who can be healed is healed; anyone unable to recover does not recover. But they have all been cared for. Where does a lack of compassion enter in?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/07/2009 20:45:56

Speaking of the Canadian healthcare system, what does it mean when Canadian doctors are maintaining that a healthcare system needs to be overhauled - theirs? According to Dr. Robert Oulett, president of the Canadian Medical Association, "believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system." (Article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw) Why are Canadian doctors seeking change in their own system? For the very reasons that opponents to the proposed changes to the American system are making. Perhaps it actually makes sense to rethink some of these proposals.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/07/2009 20:58:28

Hellbender, without any coercion, would you please disclose exactly how much you are personally willing to contribute to someone else's healthcare?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/07/2009 21:06:52

If the goal ofall this is truly compassion, then why do so many seem so willing to fall prey to one of the greatest sources of uncompassionate behavior known to mankind: consolidated power? History is littered with the sad refuse of humanity who have been trodden beneath the feet of uncontrolled power. In every instance that I know of, the source of unbridled, immoral power emanates from a government's control. Does anyone really need me to provide the specific examples? Now, the most free people in the history of mankind is seriously debating whether or not to voluntarily surrender significant liberties for more government control. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. Have we really become this insane?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/07/2009 21:32:01

Asburystrider: i read the article you pointed out and i don't think it conflicts with socialized medicine program at all. If anything, Dr. Feldman is looking for some additional considerations in the final bill. From the article you pointed out, Dr. Feldman agrees that "Our health-care system needs to be changed so that all citizens, have access to the care they need." He followed this with "Private insurance companies escape real regulation" , "We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen" and "We need to improve the quality of care." i agree with all of this. one great way to evaporate the need for tort law reform is to neutralize the need for lawsuits (which are primarily to collect medial costs and determine liability). These are unimportant if you already have your medical costs covered, thereby making liability an academic matter.

Posted by hellbender on 09/08/2009 05:18:41

No, Dr. Feldman made it clear that many of the goals in Obama's plan are admirable, but the proposal itself is fundamentally flawed. He's not simply saying that there needs to amendments to the bill, he's saying that the bill needs to be overhauled. Again, I would like to see you provide an example where a government alternative entered into the private arena and operated more efficiently and effectively. I can provide countless examples to the contrary.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/08/2009 17:05:23

ChucksChants: "Where does a lack of compassion enter in?" In the payment of services. Right now many people are in the situation where they are forced to choose between health care and bankruptcy; should they spend their money on medicine or food? Other people who have dutifully paid their insurance premiums have still been dropped. Sure they get the health care they need, but they may also need to file for bankruptcy so they can keep their house. That's where the compassion can be extended to.

Posted by hellbender on 09/08/2009 19:52:46

ChucksChants: from your article: "Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case." Not sure what you wanted to show me but i can see that they are trying to make they system more sustainable, but not change it. American's want health care reform too, so this article is not really an argument in favor of that. Every single country in the world would like to make its health care system better.

Posted by hellbender on 09/08/2009 19:59:00

Asburystrider: "I would like to see you provide an example where a government alternative entered into the private arena and operated more efficiently and effectively." Your answer is in my previous post. As far as Dr. Feldman: when his bill comes up, I'll cast my vote for it. But based on his essay and given the real world choices of A.) Obama's plan and B.) the status quo, i'm sure Dr. Feldman would chose the former. As he states and as I have repeated: "Our health-care system needs to be changed so that all citizens, have access to the care they need." ChucksChants: maybe you should argue with Dr. Feldman too, since he also apparently believes that not all citizens have access to the care they need.

Posted by hellbender on 09/08/2009 20:11:27

ChuckChants: "Hellbender, without any coercion, would you please disclose exactly how much you are personally willing to contribute to someone else's healthcare?" How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Posted by hellbender on 09/08/2009 20:19:39

Clearly Jesus was an Anarchist, I mean look what he did to those poor fellows who set up stall in the temple.

Posted by Carl on 09/08/2009 21:13:36

hellbender says "But based on [Dr. Feldman's] essay and given the real world choices of A.) Obama's plan and B.) the status quo, i'm sure Dr. Feldman would chose the former." Please reconcile that with what he directly said in his article: "Most of my colleagues and I strongly oppose the health-care reform bills that Congress will take up again this week. The proposals leave enormous gaps unfilled." and "I hope [President Obama] will consider these 10 major reasons why I -- and doctors like me -- worry that the legislation on the table WILL LEAVE US WORSE OFF." (emphasis added)

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/09/2009 01:23:45

With regard to NZ: It's a poor example. New Zealand has roughly 3 million people. The waiting list for surgeries is 50,000. That's a pretty pathetic ratio. Elderly patients have to wait for years for hip replacements and heart surgery patients cross their fingers. All this while one in five hospital beds are empty. Nearly 25% of acute surgery beds are filled with chronically ill patients (people who should be in nursing homes). Poorer individuals spend less time with doctors. It goes on and on. The inefficiency and rationing in this system is well documented. This is an improvement on our system how?

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/09/2009 02:06:15

Asburystrider: "This is an improvement on our system how?" This is hard to argue with you about this as the elderly in America already get their hip replacements and nursing home care through a gov't-run socialized medical program. NZ's problems have more to do with its small population than the structure of its health service. As far as poorer people getting less time with physicians, i'm not sure how that's possible.

Posted by hellbender on 09/09/2009 19:24:50

Here's my article for this thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html?referrer=facebook

Posted by hellbender on 09/09/2009 20:01:00

"This is hard to argue with you about this as the elderly in America already get their hip replacements and nursing home care through a gov't-run socialized medical program." Right. And when you apply a system like this to the whole, you get multi-year waits on services due to rationing. "NZ's problems have more to do with its small population than the structure of its health service." So a smaller system somehow is LESS efficient? I'm sorry, but that flies in the face of all laws of basic economics and systems theory. By definition, the larger the system, the harder it is to manage. If anything a nation with a smaller population, less lawyers per capita, and a more homogeneous demographic ought to have a FAR more efficient system.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/09/2009 21:50:57

The poor are ultimately hurt and receive poorer care for the following reasons: 1. Wealthy individuals are generally more skilled at finding their way through a bureaucratic system. 2. Poorer individuals are generally less aware of available technology and resources available to address their medical needs. 3. Since the government is the provider, there is no critical interest in ensuring that due process is being provided leaving the poor the more likely to be discriminated against. In sum, a system designed to cover the poor, benefits the most those who know how to work it the best. Generally those with more resources or ability can put themselves at the front of the lines, and since everything is covered, why not?

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/09/2009 22:07:36

Ironically, a system designed to remove the profit motive and play on good will of others is ultimately more prone to abuse and resentment. One question. When is the last time you got a thank you note from someone on welfare or food stamps? Gratitude for the generosity of your neighbor is the first thing to die with government programs.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/09/2009 22:08:15

Asburystrider: "So a smaller system somehow is LESS efficient? I'm sorry, but that flies in the face of all laws of basic economics and systems theory." Obviously not. If that were true small mom & pop stores would be displacing WalMart instead of the other way around. If you're talking about strength in bargaining, increasing a range of choice and reaching a critical mass: you bet size matters.

Posted by hellbender on 09/10/2009 19:55:58

Asburystrider: "When is the last time you got a thank you note from someone on welfare or food stamps?" That's reaching a bit, don't you think? Why would i ever get a note from someone on food stamps? I don't even get thank you notes from most recipients of my church tithings or of benefit events i attend either... but they are still worthy recipients. Christ didn't want us being compassionate for the gratitude, but rather because its the right thing to do.

Posted by hellbender on 09/10/2009 20:09:22

hellbender: "This is hard to argue with you about this as the elderly in America already get their hip replacements and nursing home care through a gov't-run socialized medical program." Asburystrider: "Right. And when you apply a system like this to the whole, you get multi-year waits on services due to rationing. " So why is Medicare acceptable and effective enough even though it is a tax-funded, gov't controlled socialized medical program? You might also answer the question "why are we continuing to help the elderly with my tax dollars while i have yet to receive thank you notes from even one hip surgery patient or nursing home patient.

Posted by hellbender on 09/10/2009 21:59:01

Asburystrider: "The poor are ultimately hurt and receive poorer care for the following reasons..." The scenario(s) you paint is/are true in the US too. This effect is independent of a free-market or a socialized medical health care design. Still, the benefit of the later is that everyone gets care.

Posted by hellbender on 09/10/2009 22:04:53

I don't give expecting a thank you. I give because, like you say, it's the right thing to do. My point is that for the recipient entitlement programs create an entitlement mentality. These programs have a way of corrupting our national soul. For the politician, votes can be bought by playing on the "compassion" motif then insured by promising to keep money flowing to dependent constituents. This is the definition of corruption.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/11/2009 10:13:19

For the recipient, receiving money from an impersonal government creates the impression that it is free money/services and removes the person/people at the other end. When they don't receive what's "theirs", what is their response? Is it a careful reflection on the fact that so many people have helped them in the past or anger at the fact that their check didn't arrive? I would rather have the freedom of using discretionary money to bless others than to have an impersonal government taking my money and dropping it at the feet of people who may or may not deserve it.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/11/2009 10:13:47

Growth of business comes with innovation, not with size. If size were the reason for success, companies like Montomery Ward, Bethlehem Oil, and GM would all be dominant companies in today's market. Instead they are shells of their former selves. Businesses like Toyota, Walmart, and Microsoft all are effective because they have remained innovative. As soon as they lose their edge or someone develops a more effective way of doing business, they will inevitably decline. The government has no vested interest in innovation. A business which loses its edge dies while a government program simply takes more money. If centralization were a more efficient operation, the Soviet Union would have been a smashing success. History says otherwise.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/11/2009 10:39:19

Asburyrider: "I would rather have the freedom of using discretionary money to bless others than to have an impersonal government taking my money and dropping it at the feet of people who may or may not deserve it." We are talking about health care, not welfare. Who doesn't deserve to be healthy? And if we have people that feel entitled receive needed health care for themselves and their family, what is evil about that?

Posted by hellbender on 09/11/2009 17:22:40

Asburystrider: "Businesses like Toyota, Walmart, and Microsoft all are effective because they have remained innovative." If you'll permit me to point out: those are all big corporations. All of the displaced big corporation (MW, GM, BO) were displaced by other big corporations. There is an efficiency benefit to having critical mass. the difference in the number of taxable individuals and businesses in the US and NZ is enormous. the soviet union had other issues contributing to a collapse. so let's rephrase your point and say "if centralization were a more efficient operation, the People's Republic of China would have been a smashing success." What does history say now?

Posted by hellbender on 09/11/2009 17:35:38

The entire Constitutional basis for government programs are justified by the "general welfare" clause" (extremely poor argument rooted in semantic manipulation I might add). Welfare, health care, they're one in the same. It isn't the government's role to make sure the individual is not sick, hungry, poor, or homeless. It's our job. When you take away that responsibility from us, two problems are created. You lose the positive pro-social bond that works both directions that I have already mentioned. Second, you open the door for corruption, abuse, and an inability to distinguish between deserved and undeserved need.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/12/2009 11:36:28

Paul wrote "he who does not work, shall not eat." He wasn't saying that those who fell on hard times shouldn't get help from others. He was making the case that freeloaders should receive tough love. For the families I've worked with who know how to manipulate the system and bleed it dry without lifting a finger, they could use some tough love. Hunger/pain can be a powerful and sadly sometimes necessary motivator. Continuing to insulate people from consequences prevents them from being a mature adult.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/12/2009 11:36:52

You think China is a GOOD example??? China STILL has one of the worst economies per capita in the world. If it weren't for Hong Kong (which is arguably the most free market driven economy in the world) China would be far worse than it is. When you account for the millions of people they have MURDERED in the name of the state, their economy for decades has been growing at a paltry figure. It wasn't until the 1980's hit and they embraced some economic liberalization that you see their economy grow at decent levels. It is the REJECTION of centralization that has brought about its recent growth. That's what history says. Try again.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/12/2009 11:56:58

Also, i'm curious about your answer to my previous question: Why is Medicare acceptable and effective enough even though it is a tax-funded, gov't controlled socialized medical program?

Posted by hellbender on 09/12/2009 22:23:41

Asburystrider: "You lose the positive pro-social bond that works both directions that I have already mentioned. Second, you open the door for corruption, abuse, and an inability to distinguish between deserved and undeserved need." How is that different than the system we have in place right now?

Posted by hellbender on 09/13/2009 05:33:27

Asburystrider:"He was making the case that freeloaders should receive tough love." Sure. I can agree with that. But what about the guy that goes to college, works all his life, has kids, dutifully pays his health insurance and then is dropped because of some technicality. Hopefully you wouldn't classify him as a freeloader. What about the single mom working 2 p/t jobs? She's not freeloading, but she's doesn't have healthcare. You seem to have this idea that the only people who will benefit from this are lazy bums.

Posted by hellbender on 09/13/2009 05:39:26

I don't believe Medicare to be either. First, it's acceptable only if you stomach the expansion of government to a degree that would make the founders sick. Second, it's not effective. It's going broke and full of bureaucratic nightmare.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/13/2009 22:23:25

We could continue to go round and round on these points. I believe the essential points have been covered. We both desire to help those who are in need of health care coverage. You believe government run health care will create more efficiency and cover people better. I believe government's track record is poor and they create more problems than they solve. Frankly, I think people who believe the government can step in and fulfill such a lofty promise (simultaneously covering everyone, maintaining quality, without increasing deficits) are living in the realm of what they believe ought to be so rather than what is, but I'm willing to leave this argument and leave it for the readers to decide.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/13/2009 22:26:26

Sadly, the preponderence of historical, empirical evidence points to larger government control leading not to the "fairness & equality" championed by liberal ideology, but to less equality, less fairness, and much less freedom. Unless you cannot accept the historicity of the ravages wrought upon their citizens by socialism, communism, fascism, monarchism, and any other governmet control scheme, then I have to question any rationale you might have for supporting this current effort to completely usurp the Contitution of the United States of Aerica.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 12:48:11

C'mon Chuck. Just because it's never worked in the past doesn't mean it won't work THIS time.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/18/2009 09:39:04

I know. I'm just breathlessly waiting for the obviously successful conclusion of the emergence of the USSA by Obama, Inc.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/19/2009 14:52:33