Those who've just recently discovered Prevailing Winds might find my column from six months ago of interest. Search "Aunt Betty" for my remarks on the current healthcare system, the strong preference I have for a single-payer system like Canada's, and my take on the privileged position from which many, if not most, Americans are able to attempt "policy by anecdote" by recounting the unfortunate experience of a friend or relative who had to wait for treatment under the for-profit system we have now.
As economist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich says, only a single-payer system will take away the profit motive that encourages -- requires -- that private insurance companies cut costs and maximize profits in ways that translate to the average American as cuts in access to and quality of care and a maximizing only of the gulf between those who can afford good insurance and those who can't. Some, lamentably many Christians, don't see that as a problem, as long as they and theirs are doing well.
And that sort of thing takes the discussion from a debate on healthcare economics to another, more foundational, one -- the social ethic and Biblical teachings of historic Christianity. If the innate coldness of heart isn't bothersome, the conflict with Bible teaching ought to be.
It's appropriate to use Romans 13 as a primer for how to honor and submit to government (although there's no solid argument there for continued Christian support of capital punishment), but if God's instrument on this earth for doing corporate good is human government, then Christians really ought to expect that "doing good" for poor people is a duty properly discharged by the State. Not ONLY by the State, but primarily by the State as the means through which social welfare is protected on a grand societal scale out of reach for individuals and the Church.
We expect the government to reflect some semblance of Biblical morality in punishing murderers, defending the nation, and not enslaving people to build superhighways through impoverished neighborhoods. Christians generally decry Rowe v. Wade, lament government support of civil unions (I support them, but many of my readers don't), and lobby for limits on the availability of pornography to kids -- because they see those things as proper expressions of Biblical morality. But when the government, charged as it is by God to maintain civil order, attempts to reflect that same morality -- caring for the poor -- they scream and mourn that government is overstepping, with only evil as its intent.
It would be forgivable if those on the outside of the Church remained puzzled, seeing only that Jesus' people howl, bitch, and scream when asked to contribute through taxation for the benefit of the poor around them -- the ones the Old Testament prophets advocated for, the same ones Jesus defended to the death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I hate to dis-illusion you, but I thought you might benefit from reading the following --
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/leboeuf-schouten1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper17.1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova76.1.html
OK, "Educating Keely" isn't your real name, and I do have a stated bias for printing comments by people brave, or decent, enough to use their real names. Further, I'm not real interested in what a Lew Rockwell site has to say, for two reasons: One, I think Lew Rockwell is a less-than-reasonable source. Two, I'm interested in what YOU have to say, even if you hide behind a pseudonym. Why don't you just summarize Lew and tell me yourself, with your real name, what you think? Keely
Keely, clearly it is racism to be against national-socialist medicine, or any other fascist proposal from Obama. But the venom dripping from the fangs of Chris Matthews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbHDL518oP0) and the rest of the MSM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E1SLJgATvM) shows how worried they are. As Etienne de la Boetie (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html) wrote so many years ago, government depends on the consent of the governed. Withdraw that consent, and even a democratic dictatorship crumbles, without violence. We can get a glimpse of the essential weakess of the state -- which is a parasite, after all -- by the collapse of the health-care juggernaut. Middle-class America has finally awakened to the fact that Joe the Plumber was right: Obama's central principle, forged in his Saul Aliniskyite training as a community organizer, is redistributionism. His health-care reform punishes the middle-class to benefit the underclass and Obamaite unions. Thus the media hatefest against the dissenters. They cannot refute us, so like good statists, they resort to the 10-minute hate. Make that the ten-day hate.
(Cross-posted here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/32689.html)
OK, still haven't figured out the "use your real name" thing, have you? But my response to you is simply this: The "patriotic dissenters" who are flooding in to Town Hall meetings are not there to discuss, listen, learn, and equip themselves. They're screaming about Obama's birth certificate, guns, "socialized medicine," Tea Parties, and all of their favorite rants. But that's not dissent -- it's disruption, and it's based not on Obama's ideas, but on their antipathy for the man.
Keely
Mrs. Mix, I quite disagree with your views on the government's legitimate role in health care. I also find no support for your position in the Bible. But having said that, I strongly agree with what you said in response to Lew Rockwell; i.e., that there is no legitimate place for screaming and disruption in the Town Hall meetings and such. Actually, I think Lew would probably agree with you on that point. Lew's good friend and frequent poster at the LewRockwell.com blog David Kramer wrote to me in an email the other day something that probably Lew would strongly affirm as well: "I don't believe in these shout-downs at the Town Halls. Rudeness is uncalled for no matter what side of an issue you are on. Why the real anti-health care people [he means people who are against Obamacare] aren't holding large rallies and marches rather than shouting at opponents is beyond me." Another friend of Lew and poster over the LewRockwell.com blog, Stephan Kinsella, agreed with Bill Maher's assessment of health-care reform protester at a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina who stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare": Maher described that as "kind of like driving cross country to protest highways."
A wise man once said you can't fight "something" with "nothing." There is a Libertarian approach to health care which is practically identical to the Christian approach to health care. (I won't go so far as to say that all Libertarians are espousing a God-honoring approach to health care, but it can be said of many if not most of them.) People who have solutions should be presenting those solutions in a positive, constructive fashion, not simply attempting to shout-down their opponents. What can one say to a guy who rants "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"? Such a person has already acceded to the position he thinks he's protesting. It's pretty pathetic. So, yes, I fully share your sense of dismay at such behavior.
Thank you, Chris, for your comment. It really is a shame that instead of offering well-thought-out alternatives in a respectful, responsible manner, Obama's healthcare opponents are simply disrupting what should be a civil exchange of ideas and information. Thanks for writing,
Keely
Post a Comment