If Jesus were living in Atlanta, Georgia would he support the single-payer health-care model now being proposed? Wouldn’t Jesus be the first to stand up and applaud the notion of health care for everyone? After all, there is no one who is a bigger defender of the sick and needy than Jesus. Can you even begin to picture Jesus standing in favor of the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies?
Let’s start with considering the popular argument against our present health care system: it costs too much! Anderson Cooper pounded on this drum (along with many other statistics) in his September 2nd blog:
When you look at our spending on a national basis, the numbers are astonishing. According to the World Health Organization and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the U.S. spends 16.6 percent of its GDP on healthcare. But Canada (remember, they live three years longer than we do) and England (they live two years longer) both spend only about 10 percent of their GDP on healthcare.
I assume statistics like these are intended to buckle the knees of those who seek to stand up for a robust free-market based health care system. But, is the statistic to be trusted at face-value or is there more at play than simply a return-on-investment?
In a recent article called The Pharmaceutical Umbrella, Benjamin A. Plotinsky points out the relationship between how our extra expense actually decreases the expense of other countries. Mr. Plotinsky makes the striking point that socialized medicine regulates the price of prescription drugs and thereby reduces the potential research that would serve as the basis for finding cures for diseases that kill millions of people annually. In other words, when you take away the free-market incentive (profit) of finding the cure for a disease (lets say cancer for example) you remove the impetus for such a discovery. The free-market system keeps the incentives for cures in place and thereby provides more potential for medical breakthroughs for the entire world. I don’t think Jesus would support a system that stifles medical cures, do you?
Also, socialist Europe, by using American drugs, is actually profiting from our free-market system and driving our “per person” costs up since we do the research and development and then they regulate the cost. Europe essentially plays hardball with American drug companies to “accept bargain-basement prices for their wares.” The companies then make up for the loss by charging Americans more. Essentially, we are supporting socialistic Europe now and it is driving our expense up. So when you hear someone say we have the most expensive health care system in the world you now have a better picture as to why this is. In theory, if the free-market system was in play around the world we would have better health care and better medicine at cheaper rates. Conversely, if we move to a socialist model it will degrade health care quality and increase costs worldwide. Do you think this is something Jesus would want? An increase in potential for more poverty and a decrease in more effective medical treatment?
Mr. Plotinsky goes on to say that,
“…the lesson here isn’t that America should be stingy about subsidizing French health care. If American consumers and drug companies play a disproportionate role in protecting the world from dangerous microbes—just as America did in protecting it from Soviet missiles—we should be proud. (It would be too much to hope that this good deed will go unpunished among European elites.) No, the lesson is to be skeptical of reports speaking glowingly of socialized health-care systems, because those systems wouldn’t work nearly as well as they do without unsocialized American medicine.”
Where does that leave us as followers of Jesus Christ? It would seem that a strong argument could be made that if we move to a model that relies on socialized principles that we will actually hurt more people (worldwide) than help people in America. Given this reality, what do you think Jesus would do?
[Disclaimer: I fully realize that these issue would not be central to the mission of Jesus. However, as followers of Jesus we need to consider political issues like this due to the fact that we are called to be responsible citizens of the United States].
~GODS AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE ABANDONED HIS FLOCK~
* THE FINE ART OF DENYING 45 MILLION AMERICANS HEALTH~CARE IN OUR JUDEO~CHRISTIAN NATION IS NOT RACIST AT ALL… IT’S JUST OUR BEHIND THE SCENE WEALTHY ELITE CITIZENS USING THEIR TREMENDOUS WEALTH TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE OUR U.S. CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES IN KEEPING ALL THE little poor folk down *
AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS ALL ACROSS THE USA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO COUNT ON THEIR RELIGIOUS FLOCK TO CONTRIBUTE(TITHE)THEIR HARD EARNED MONIES TO THEIR MINISTRIES EVERY WEEK.
THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ATTENDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE U.S. ARE MIDDLE~CLASS AND WORKING POOR CITIZENS WHO NOW DESPERATELY NEED THE HELP AND SUPPORT FROM THESE SAME U.S.RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN LOBBYING THE U.S.CONGRESS TO PROVIDE PROPER HEALTH~CARE FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS.
***THERE ARE CURRENTLY AN ESTIMASTED 45 MILLION MEN WOMAN AND CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH~CARE IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD????
SILENT AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO ALL HAVE HEALTH~CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES IS MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING THEN THE POSSIBLE DENIAL OF A FUTURE HEALTH~CARE PLAN FOR ALL…
LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS (424-247-2013)
Well I don’t a fancy advocacy group but I do have opinions. First the facts. There are not 45 million Americans without health-care. There is not one american or non american who will not get treated if they go to a hospital with an emergency. There are 45 million people in the country who don’t have health insurance. Of these there are something like 9 million illegal immigrants and the vast majority of the rest are either eligible for Medicare or just don’t want it insurance. However to be sure, all have access to health care.
WWJD? Well, it seems the New Testament advocates obeying the government, but I can’t think of a place where it speaks to public policy.
The Old Testament gave relief to the poor by forcing those with much not to glean the fields or to harvest to the edge of their fields and allow for the poor to come along afterward to gather for themselves. This provided for the poor through their own industry and the generosity of the community. Those who were generous and loved the poor would leave large swaths of their fields unharvested those who did not left very little.
I think the principal is that the community does have an obligation to care for the poor at the same time the poor have an obligation to provide for themselves. It seems to me that this is largely accomplished by healthcare as it exists today.
I think there are major problems with health insurance and much could be done to make it more efficient, but that would largely be accomplished with less government intervention than more.
Less government intervention?? How would that fix anything? Government was created to protect and secure our rights. We have the right to life. This isn’t like a car or property where people profit off you. This is your health and life that people are profiting off.
If for some reason you don’t have health insurance (too expensive) which is the case for most people, and you get hurt/sick and can’t afford treatment and you don’t get fixed or die then the government did not do their job.
The current healthcare system is flawed. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen poor/undocumented people not have Medicaid go to hospital get fixed get their bill and never pay it. Because they can’t because it’s so high. What do they do? Keep wracking the bills up that they never pay and then who pays it? Regular people that do have insurance!
I see your point Dan and greatly appreciate you writing on this issue. But this issue along with others (ie. socialism versus capitalism) to me goes into a grey area of idealism versus pragmatism. It appears to me the driving principle behind universal healthcare – that every human being is entitled to healthcare – is noble.
The problem as I understand it, if the universal healthcare policy was applied in US it would eliminate financial incentives for healthcare improvements thereby eroding the overall healthcare quality available and increasing costs worldwide (I would argue possibly distributing costs more evenly but I am not sure), therefore Jesus is opposed to the policy because in “reality” it does more harm than good. Doesn’t this logic place Jesus in a pragmatic box? Are there examples in scripture where Jesus chose pragmatism over idealism? Maybe I am missing the point but I would really like to understand.
Jesus seems to honor others motives and intent not the earthly results (Mark 12:43-44). In fact, he seems to rebuke his disciples for being so pragmatic in Mark 14:6-9. I appreciate your insight into topic.
O’Ryan – terrific clarification on healthcare versus health insurance. Yet I would contend some of the uninsured are disadvantaged. They can not afford the services and treatments, which most reasonable people would agree are usual and customary. As a result, they do not have access to the same “healthcare” as someone with insurance. I suppose the same could be said amongst the different health insurance plans.
Lawyers for Poor Americans…you lost me with the all caps. It comes across as propaganda.
This idea that the government should ensure that everyone has health care buys in to the socialist idea of government as savior. There are lots of things that people want and even need but is it government’s job to see that they have them? The Bible is fairly clear in Romans 13 and other places that the job of government is to punish evil doers and maintain the public order so that the gospel may be freely preached. The places on earth where governments have least often followed that model in recent times have been socialist systems.
Some Christians over the years have tried to take things like Jesus’ instructions to believers in the Sermon on the Mount or the description of the way the early church functioned in Acts and use those to support socialism, but this is simply improperly mixing the two kingdoms. The church is not the state and the state is not the church. Both are ordained by God but have different functions.
There is one institution ordained by God however, that has been given the specific task (among other things) of caring for those less fortunate – the family. Again, it’s in the socialist realms of the earth where efforts to destroy the family have been most vigorously pursued.
For another good resource on this topic, here’s an excellent article outlining the “Christian” origins of the socialist mentality in the United States.
@Grant – I would agree with you. We don’t all have access to the same health care. But just because there are differences in resources does not mean there is an obligation to cover the difference. Warren Buffet will always have access to more than I do; which seems right to me. Further, any kind of government interference will not change that.
@Larry – I don’t think God has ordained the Family as the one instatution to help. I think he has designated the Church to do so as an outpouring of the Gospel.
I agree O’Ryan, I’m just saying that one of the principle ways the poor are supposed to be cared for is through the family. Socialist governments virtually always attempt to displace the family and assume its role, not only in the care of the less fortunate but in other areas as well such as care of children, education, etc. It goes back to the government as savior worldview.
@ O’Ryan…BTW, you make a key point. The idea that disproportionate allocation of resources goes away when the government rather than the free market is doing the allocating is false. The government just uses a different set of criteria to determine who gets more and who gets less.
O’Ryan – I see your point with the Warren Buffet comparison but that is apples and oranges. Warren Buffet can afford excessive and lavish treatments that are beyond typical health insurance plans. The premise behind universal healthcare is to make usual and customary treatments available and affordable to all. I don’t see the comparison between you and Warren Buffet the same as between someone with insurance and someone without insurance. While I tend to agree that current government option plan is imperfect, it appears to have some merit because it at least addresses the fundamental problem. Until those critical of the plan begin offering up alternatives, instead just suggesting keeping the status quo, we will not get anywhere. The gap among those with insurance and those without will only widen under the current conditions, which will ultimately just drive up costs on everyone.
That’s the thing. What services do you think people are missing out on? Private rooms? Plastic surgery? Lasic? What exactly is the expectation of health care if you can’t afford it? Which is exactly why my comparison with Warren Buffet is apt. There is a difference in the medical services someone gets. But the difference is not in necessary medical care.
“the government option plan is imperfect, … it at least addresses the fundimental problem.”
What problem? We all have access to necessary and usual care. As far as insurance goes, even the poor have access to medicare, SCHIP, and private charity. People are not dieing in the street for lack of insurance.
The idea that motion for the sake of motion is crazy. I think regulation to increase competition, grow insurance pools, and lower medical costs are appropriate; which the other side has offered up as an alternative. But turning 1/6th of the american economy on its head is foolish.
Grant, I would agree that both Republican and Democrats have done much to foster a lack of trust among people. Trust is the fundamental item needed for broad and lasting change. Frankly, I don’t consider myself a Republican or a Democrat but a follower of Christ with the responsibility to engage in the governing process of the United States. With that being said, you mentioned: “Until those critical of the plan begin offering up alternatives, instead just suggesting keeping the status quo, we will not get anywhere.” I would refer to you at least 35 proposals made by Republicans that, thus far, can’t get a hearing due to power plays and simply being ignored by the Democrat-controlled Congress.
O’Ryan – I respect your points and they are challenging me to re-think about the whole issue – so thank you. I would like some more time to think through this because the problem is obviously complicated. Some observations:
1) Costs are going up. Quality of healthcare available is improving but it is creating a larger gap between the haves and the have-nots. You said, “People are not dying in the street for lack of insurance.” How do you know that? Even assuming that is true do you think it is possible that a “lack of insurance” is instead bankrupting them and their families? The clip from the article below points to this issue.
“In 1960 the United States spent only 5.2 percent of GDP on health care. By 2004 that number had risen to 16 percent. The major factor associated with that growth has been the development and increasing use of new medical technology. The new technology surely produces cost savings in healthcare but the additional spending that takes place as a result of the expansion of medical possibilities outweighs those savings. We spend more on healthcare because there’s more that healthcare can do, which is a testament to improved healthcare. The problem is our health care system often makes irrational choices, and rising costs exacerbate those irrationalities. Specifically, American health care tends to divide the population into insiders and outsiders. Insiders, who have good insurance, receive everything modern medicine can provide, no matter how expensive. Outsiders, who have poor insurance or none at all, receive very little. To take just one example, one study found that among Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those without insurance were 70 percent more likely than those with insurance to die over the next three years.
In response to new medical technology, the system spends even more on insiders. But it compensates for higher spending on insiders, in part, by consigning more people to outsider status—robbing Peter of basic care in order to pay for Paul’s state-of-the-art treatment. Thus we have the cruel paradox that medical progress is bad for many Americans’ health.”
2) Because of increasing costs employer based healthcare is starting to erode. The really good plans that I used to have with a co-pay are being eliminated and replaced with high deductible plans, and some employers are just doing away with it altogether.
Dan – thanks for pointing out what the opposition has offered up. I, like you, don’t see myself as one or the other. However, on most issues I tend to agree with Republican policies but on some social issues I tend to agree with Democrats. I know you are very busy but if you have time can you look into the question I posed…
“Are there examples in scripture where Jesus chose pragmatism over idealism? Maybe I am missing the point but I would really like to understand.
Jesus seems to honor others motives and intent not the earthly results (Mark 12:43-44). In fact, he seems to rebuke his disciples for being so pragmatic in Mark 14:6-9. I appreciate your insight into topic.”
Grant,
I would dispute a couple of things in the article you cited.
First of all, I think the rise in health care costs are primarily due to increased government intervention in that segment of the economy as well as out of control litigation, not development of new technology. In those health care sectors which have very little government interference (cosmetic surgery, Lasick eye surgery) new technology has also been developed yet costs have gone down.
Secondly, there seems to be an assumption on the part of whoever wrote this that the State would somehow make more rational choices than would the free market. I don’t think history gives us any reason to believe that.
** WORLD-WIDE ACTIVE DUTY U.S. MILITARY FIGHTING AND DYING IN PROTECTING ALL OF US – ALL HAVE POORER PARENTS AND SIBLINGS BACK HOME DYING WITHOUT AMERICAN HEALTH*CARE **
~ PRESIDENT OBAMA AND U.S. SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE OF MAINE BOTH KNOW THAT ANY FUTURE HEALTH*CARE PLAN FOR OUR NEW AMERICA NEEDS TO ALSO ENCOMPASS ALL FAMILY MEMBERS(PARENTS & SIBLINGS) OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS…ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE UN*AMERICAN ~
**JUST MAYBE AMERICA NEEDS A FEW MORE REVOLVING DOORS IN OUR U.S. CONGRESS **
OUR COUNTRY COULD REALLY USE MANY MORE SINCERE AMERICANS LIKE THIS SPECIAL U.S.SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE FROM MAINE WHO CONSIDERS THIS COUNTRIES 45 MILLION POOR AMERICAN MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN WITHOUT PROPER HEALTH CARE LIKE HER OWN FAMILY AHEAD OF HER ELECTED POLITICAL FAMILY **
45 MILLION POORER AMERICANS HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL WITH THE PEOPLES U.S. SENATOR SNOWE OF MAINE.
LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS THANKS THIS SPECIAL WOMEN FROM THE CARING STATE OF MAINE FOR SHOWING THE REST OF AMERICA THAT GODS VILLAGE OF ANGELICA BEINGS CAN EVEN BE HERE WITH US EVERY~DAY IN THE FLESH.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
~ OUR U.S.CONGRESS AT LEAST DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE…THEY AFFORD POORER AMERICANS THE SAME EMERGENCY ONLY HEALTH*CARE THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECEIVE ~
AMERICA~LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT~ 45,000 DEAD POOR AMERICANS LEAVE U.S. EVERY*YEAR DUE TO 3rd WORLD HEALTH CONDITIONS ??
** POLITICS IN AMERICA IS VERY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN OUR MIDDLE~CLASS & WORKING POOR CITIZENS ARE ALL BEING FORCED 2 ALLOW BIG $$$ TO CONTROL THE PEOPLES HALLS OF THE U.S.CONGRESS..
~ SADLY,OUR VERY OWN AMERICAN HEALTH*CARE SATANIC VERSES HAS KEPT 45 MILLION POOR AMERICANS IN 3rd WORLD HEALTH CONDITIONS~
DON’T WORRY BE HAPPY ~ THE WORLDS SELECT BILLIONAIRES AND THEIR FRONT CORPORATIONS WILL ALL GET ON BOARD THE NEW HEALTH~TRAIN OF $$$…**ADDING 45 MILLION MORE AMERICAN CITIZENS TO THE CURRENT GIVEN PROFIT MARGINS + WITH A FUTURE AMNESTY PROGRAM (6 months) AFTER NEXT U.S.PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION = $$$$$$$$$………
WEALTH~CARE FOR ALL THE HEAVILY INVESTED INTERNATIONAL AND AMERICAN BILLIONAIRES IN THE CURRENT U.S.HEALTH FOR THE WEALTHY ONLY SYSTEM WILL NOT END ANYTIME SOON… IT WILL ONLY BE RE~ARRANGED TO MAKE SURE ALL THESE MEGA CAPITALISTS PROSPER IN JUST ANOTHER FASHION .
THE FINE ART OF DENYING 45 MILLION AMERICANS HEALTH~CARE IN OUR JUDEO~CHRISTIAN NATION IS NOT RACIST AT ALL… IT’S JUST OUR BEHIND THE SCENE WEALTHY ELITE CITIZENS USING THEIR TREMENDOUS WEALTH TO DIRECTLY INFLUENCE OUR U.S. CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES IN KEEPING ALL THE little poor folk down *
AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS ALL ACROSS THE USA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO COUNT ON THEIR RELIGIOUS FLOCK TO CONTRIBUTE(TITHE)THEIR HARD EARNED MONIES TO THEIR MINISTRIES EVERY WEEK. THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ATTENDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE U.S. ARE MIDDLE~CLASS AND WORKING POOR CITIZENS WHO NOW DESPERATELY NEED THE HELP AND SUPPORT FROM THESE SAME U.S.RELIGIOUS LEADERS IN LOBBYING THE U.S.CONGRESS TO PROVIDE PROPER HEALTH~CARE FOR ALL POORER AMERICANS.
***THERE ARE CURRENTLY AN ESTIMASTED 45 MILLION MEN WOMAN AND CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH~CARE IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD????
SILENT AMERICAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO ALL HAVE HEALTH~CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES IS MUCH MORE FRIGHTENING THEN THE POSSIBLE DENIAL OF A FUTURE HEALTH~CARE PLAN FOR ALL…
**45,OOO AMERICANS DIE EACH YEAR IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DIRECTLY RELATED TO THEIR LACK OF PROPER HEALTH*CARE.
LAWYERS FOR POOR AMERICANS IS A WWW VOLUNTEER LOBBY FOUND WITH ANY SEARCH ENGINE. (424-247-2013)
Wow, my blog is now being used to push health care reform by “Lawyers for Poor Americans” (was this title created to sound sympathetic or what?). I can tell they care since they used the Teale Data Center (based in California) to hunt down blogs discussing health care issues and spew-out this post.
I plan to leave it up (since it is info. that is involved in the discussion) and leave the final judgment of sincerity and legitimacy of the information being provided up to you.
BTW. What does this mean: …”OUR VERY OWN AMERICAN HEALTH*CARE SATANIC VERSES HAS KEPT 45 MILLION POOR AMERICANS IN 3rd WORLD HEALTH CONDITIONS.”