Insurance for Healthcare

[SteveF]

No problem Pete, take your time.

[thrombomodulin]

Here is the link to my post:

go to "http://www.abpnews.com", click on the "opinion" button at the top of the page, scroll down to the article "Opinion: The moral imperative of health-care reform" by David Gushee. My comment spans the four posts presently at the end (#27-#30) - broken up due to size limit.

Any feedback or criticism of the arguments expressed in my comments are most certainly welcome.

Peter

[SteveF]

Hi Pete, I read your three entries and I have a different perspective from you. I’ll offer my thoughts as you requested.

A government health care program is necessarily based on the expropriation of wealth from some to give it to others. Therefore, a government health care program is inconsistent with God's law and it is morally imperative that Christians oppose, rather than support, this means.

and

The scriptures affirm the concept of individual ownership of property, and that deprivation of an individual’s property rights is a violation of the Law (e.g. "Thou shalt not steal", and the laws pertaining to restitution).

How would you reconcile this verse with your statements?

Lev 19:9 When you harvest the crops of your land, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. 10 It is the same with your grape crop—do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them for the poor and the foreigners living among you. I am the LORD your God


It seems to me that a distribution of wealth is within God’s law. Coincidentally, the verse right after this says “Do not steal”. Therefore, God did not see the poor who entered the wealthy person’s land and took from their crops as “stealing”. Rather, it seems God saw it as a fair way to meet their needs.

These verses inform us that, indeed, Caesar is authorized to tax, however, it also specifies that the purpose for taxation is the administration of civil justice. The administration of civil justice is a valid function of government, and taxation for that purpose is not theft. These verses show that it is our duty to support those functions of government that are legitimate from the point of view of God's law. These verses do not authorize Caesar to tax for any and every purpose.

We know that Ceasars did things that were clearly unjust, yet Christians of the day were encouraged to pay taxes. (Render unto Ceasar…). I’m not saying that Christians shouldn’t speak out about unjust spending (like an unjust war) or suggest more efficient ways to spend. Rather, I’m simply challenging your point.

It is quite another to say that God requires us to submit our body to the state for its maintenance and care, which is none other than slavery--the power of the state to impair the dominion authority of a man which he received directly from his Maker without passing through the hands of Caesar. The care of one's body is a duty owed to God, not to the state.

I think you’re overstating your point. Nobody is forcing anybody to go to the doctor. We have government run health care and, like most guys, I don’t go to the doctor nearly as often as I should (my choice) Those in favour of health care are just looking for everyone to have access to necessary medical treatment. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that.

The concerns regarding "death panels" should not be dismissed as "misunderstandings of complex policy issues". It is obvious that no politician at the outset promotes a health care plan that includes "death panels". However, in the implementation, such will be the inevitable outcome of socialization of health care due to economic law

All I can say, is I completely disagree.

Pete, I want to be clear. Are you saying that you don’t think it’s Christian to support any social programs at all? Therefore, should a Christian, if asked, call for the closing down of things like water treatment plants, fire stations and public parks because they are funded in an ungodly way?

I would also like to ask you the same question I asked Steve G. Here it is:

Here in Canada, universal health care is extremely popular. The person who fought for and obtained it was a former baptist minister and he faced very heavy opposition form medical unions etc.. He was recentley voted the greatest Canadian of all time because of, what most Canadians consider, his heroic fight to bring in universal health care. If so many people are in favour of something would you still consider it an unjust tax? I'm sure there are some Canadian's somewhere that want a private healthcare system, but I haven't personally met one.

In other words, if everyone essentially agrees that these are well spent tax dollars and are willing to contribute (with no dissenters) is it still unjust.

Thanks
Steve

[thrombomodulin]

How would you reconcile this verse with your statements

I do not disagree with the idea that God requires his people to give to the poor. What I do disagree with, however, is the idea that God has authorized the civil government to enforce these particular rules. Unlike other commands in this chapter, there is no penalty stipulated that the magistrates are to apply. As far as I am aware, this is true of all of the verses which pertain to the matter of giving to the poor.

Duet 24:19, however, is one such similar verse and here the consequences are stipulated. Those who give will be blessed by God, and failure to give has the result that God does not bless. The command is an admonition for attaining a blessing from God, it is not a limit of man's action punishable by government.

Further, note that Ruth asked permission from the land owner to gather sheaves behind the harvesters (Ruth 2:7). Thus, I believe rather that God does not see the poor who enter a wealthy person's land to take crops as stealing when, like Ruth, they attain the permission of the land owner. Therefore, I do not agree that the passages grant the poor an entitlement, welfare, or subsidy upon which to demand any relief.

Rather, I'm simply challenging your point.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the challenge is. Are you saying the verse requires Christians to pay tax for those functions Caesar carries out which violate God's law? Perhaps this is true, I am not sure. However, if Caesar by definition is violating God's law when he taxes and spends for illegitamte purposes, then it still follows that Caesar is violating God's law in levying the tax.

Nobody is forcing anybody to go to the doctor

Yes, I am here looking ahead towards the future. If someone is required to pay for a certain treatment, then it follows that those who pay may require of the one seeking such treatment actions on their part to minimize costs. For example, treatments for the swine flu may perhaps overwhelm the medical system. Since the gov't must bear this cost, does it not follow that they might compel their citizens to recieve a vaccine, regardless of the opinion of the recipient? Or more subtley, perhaps those who reject vacinnation will be given second class access to subsequent treatment?

Are you saying that you don’t think it’s Christian to support any social programs at all? Therefore, should a Christian, if asked, call for the closing down of things like water treatment plants, fire stations and public parks because they are funded in an ungodly way?

No. It is not unchristian to support social programs. It is, however, unchristian to compel your neighbor to support such a program against their will via the threat of imprisonment, etc,. A Christian ought not to desire the closing down of such facilities but rather only ending their compulsorary financing. All of these institutions can and would exist without forced financing, although this requires that they be separated from the government and privately owned.

If so many people are in favour of something would you still consider it an unjust tax?

Yes. If everyone agrees with it then coercion is unnecessary and the proof of such can be easily and justly be found in the following (1) repeal all laws requiring the payment of the taxes in its support (2) repeal any laws restricting the practice of medicine outside of the government system. Then anyone is free to pay and participate in the highly regarded government system, or free to not pay the government and find their medical needs fulfilled in a private market.

P.S. I'll address the point on death panels later, I'm on a dial-up connection today.

[SteveF]

P.S. I'll address the point on death panels later, I'm on a dial-up connection today.

Ok Pete, I'll wait for you to finish your thoughts.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, thrombomodulin –

I’m quite tardy here. But better late than never?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
your comment would depend upon a certain sort of theory-of-ownership. A more social theory-of-ownership would not sustain your argument.

thrombomodulin wrote:
What part of the scriptures give the idea that communal ownership of property is established by God? (Of course, the scripture has numerous examples of private property - e.g. laws against theft).

Here we may encounter a difference in hermeneutic. Some persons demand scriptural warrant for an idea. I do not view scriptures as an end to understanding, but rather at best a beginning to understanding. Accordingly, I am willing to entertain a social theory-of-ownership, whether or not the scripture supplies warrant for it.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The government is “required” to provide what society assigns for it to provide. Government is the agent of society.

thrombomodulin wrote:
All actions everywhere are carried out by individuals. To say the "society assigns", or "society extends", etc,. is incorrect. Rather it should be said that particular individuals are acting in one way or another. On every issue individuals disagree with each other. Thus essentially all actions of the State are nothing more than one group of individuals using force to implement their will against another group of individuals.

Individuals perform actions, but your comment seems to ignore the fact that there are corporate entities. For example, Israel was and is a corporate entity. This entity was comprised of many individual states of being, but it had its own corporate state of being – which G-d engaged as such. When “Israel fell into sin,” did this mean that there were no righteous individuals in Israel? Of course not. But G-d dealt with Israel as a corporate entity. And so we read about Jeremiah suffering the effects of national tragedy, despite his individual righteousness. Probably he was not the only individual to do so.

When society does this or that, this does not mean that all individual members of society are unanimously working in concert. Rather, it means that the aggregate of society is doing this or that. Many individuals will be involved in this aggregate action only through passive complicity. And numerous others may strive, howbeit ineffectually, against the aggregate action. But this does not mean that there is no corporate entity in action.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
As such governing shepherds have the potential to make a significant difference in yielding a more moral citizenry – including through forcing people to behave better than they would otherwise, thus inculcating better habits and molding a healthier sense of conventional wisdom.

thrombomodulin wrote:
All people have a different scale of values pertaining to the options that are available to themselves. Such an effort invariably entails coercing some against their will to do what someone else believes is "better and healthier" for them. Is this not an endorsement of the tyranny of the majority?

Perhaps in some majoritarian constructs. It may be an endorsement of “tyranny of the minority” in other constructs. And a society without coercion could be a “tyranny of the individual” – for every member of society would find the results of unfettered individual choices imposed upon them.

But let’s not be melodramatic. Coercion is not by definition tyranny. Parents coerce their children every day. But do we pillory their “tyranny”?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The purpose of public education is not to provide citizens who are parents with a free service. The purpose is to provide the entire society with the benefits of a better-educated populace ... facilitate the pursuit of justice through perceptive testimony and thoughtful jury service.

thrombomodulin wrote:
This and all similar socialists ideas suffer from the problem of economic calculation. There are finite resources available to carry out such tasks. How does any citizen or government official delegated to the task of distribution of resources know whether the benefits are worth the costs? How is it known whether there is too much, or too little education - would those resources be better spent elsewhere? It cannot be argued that everyone in society benefits - some will benefit, others will not. On the other hand, only in an unhampered free market where prices are voluntarily paid to those selling services can a balance be achieved which is commensurate with the desires of individual consumers.

It is amazing how persons with so little faith in governing agents to manage suitably, nevertheless have such immense faith in the ability of every Tom, Rick, and Shari to do so. Meeting the desires of individual consumers hardly guarantees that resources will be allocated in an optimal fashion.

A fundamental problem with a free market is that it hinges upon the unfettered and undisciplined lusts of a largely foolish consumer populace. Let us look at what free consumers invest their resources into. Surf eBay, Amazon, or Wal-Mart.com! Can it reasonably be argued that everybody in society benefits from this method of allocation?

thrombomodulin wrote:
Public education is again tantamount to one group of individuals being placed in a position to propagate their ideas at the expense of others. The law of nature shows that God gives children to parents, not the State. It is thus for parents to direct the teaching of their own children, and not compel others to teach their children in a certain way.

And when private individuals direct the teaching of their children, they propagate their ideas at the expense of others.

I have worked in education for years. You must have little appreciation for the pathetic unwillingness of many parents to invest in the education of their children. The “law of nature” would let millions of children suffer through their entire lives for the failings of their parents. And in turn the children of relatively adequate parents would have to suffer through their entire lives in their societal fellowship with these disadvantaged souls.

thrombomodulin wrote:
It is actually to the detriment of the judicial system for citizens to be educated by the State. Inevitably, when the state controls eduction, the educational program becomes a means to inculcate its pupils towards Statism. It has been openly state by a US supreme court judge that the goal of the public educational system is to inculcate a set of values among children. The semi-monopoly of public education is very much to the detriment of an independently minded jury.

It is not the role of the jury to be independently minded. It is the role of the jury to serve as representatives of society. Accordingly, members of the jury should be inculcated in the values of the society that they are representing.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
... is better equipped to muster for military draft

thrombomodulin wrote:
Is not a draft immoral? From where does the State acquire a right to involuntarily dispose of the life of its citizens as it pleases for its own preservation?

The state acquires the privilege when individuals choose to hold the status of citizens within its paradigms. An individual who is not willing to meet the established price of participation may disinvest.

But you should wake up a bit here. Your scripture does not forbid slavery – the ongoing involuntary disposition of an individual’s life and energies. If Susan can allocate another individual’s days on this planet in order to get her washing done, and if Lucelle can direct her maidservant to acquire the skill of weaving in order to contribute to the domestic economy, and if Frank can put his slave in harm’s way defending sheep against wild animals, then surely society can require things of its constituents. Individual determination is not a legal right guaranteed in your scripture.

[thrombomodulin]

kaufmannphillips,

We indeed have a very great difference of opinion in these matters: Instead of debating a number of particulars, perhaps a more principled approach is expedient. I will begin by asking these questions:

1) Do you believe that God has placed no limitations whatsoever upon society in regard to what it may demand of the individual?
2) Is there any demand of society to which a dissenting individual can refuse to comply without violating God's law?

[SteveF]

I wrote

Ok Pete, I'll wait for you to finish your thoughts.

Ok, I lied. I likely won't be at a computer until until early next week so I thought I'd enter my responses now.

I do not disagree with the idea that God requires his people to give to the poor. What I do disagree with, however, is the idea that God has authorized the civil government to enforce these particular rules. Unlike other commands in this chapter, there is no penalty stipulated that the magistrates are to apply. As far as I am aware, this is true of all of the verses which pertain to the matter of giving to the poor.

Pete, I think it’s difficult to decipher what Christians should decide a government should and should not do. Living in a democracy is a unique situation. My intentions were to demonstrate that “distribution of wealth” is a principal found in God’s law. Should we not be encouraged when a society sees merit in a Godly principle?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the challenge is. Are you saying the verse requires Christians to pay tax for those functions Caesar carries out which violate God's law? Perhaps this is true, I am not sure. However, if Caesar by definition is violating God's law when he taxes and spends for illegitamte purposes, then it still follows that Caesar is violating God's law in levying the tax.

Yes that’s my point. The taxes were used for some things Christians would disagree with, yet they were instructed to pay them.

Yes, I am here looking ahead towards the future. If someone is required to pay for a certain treatment, then it follows that those who pay may require of the one seeking such treatment actions on their part to minimize costs. For example, treatments for the swine flu may perhaps overwhelm the medical system. Since the gov't must bear this cost, does it not follow that they might compel their citizens to recieve a vaccine, regardless of the opinion of the recipient? Or more subtley, perhaps those who reject vacinnation will be given second class access to subsequent treatment?

Pete, all I can say is, I’ve been living with public healthcare for decades and your concerns have never materialized and there’s no reason to think they will. In fact it’s quite the opposite, as all citizens are treated fairly and there is no second class. People are encouraged to have vaccines but never forced.

I think I’d be more concerned under a private insurance system where the company exists solely to earn a profit. They would seemingly have a much stronger motivation to force vaccines and implement the two tier system you’re suggesting.

No. It is not unchristian to support social programs. It is, however, unchristian to compel your neighbor to support such a program against their will via the threat of imprisonment, etc,. A Christian ought not to desire the closing down of such facilities but rather only ending their compulsorary financing. All of these institutions can and would exist without forced financing, although this requires that they be separated from the government and privately owned.

Pete, to be up front, I think it makes sense to have some things in the public’s hands. I don’t like the idea of all the remaining public waterfronts and parks being sold to private home owners and yacht clubs etc..? Perhaps I should ask the question the other way. What specifically do you think the government could use tax dollars for and not be considered stealing?

Yes. If everyone agrees with it then coercion is unnecessary and the proof of such can be easily and justly be found in the following (1) repeal all laws requiring the payment of the taxes in its support (2) repeal any laws restricting the practice of medicine outside of the government system. Then anyone is free to pay and participate in the highly regarded government system, or free to not pay the government and find their medical needs fulfilled in a private market

Pete, it’s not just the funding but the manner in which the health care system is implemented that is popular. If your 2 conditions were introduced by any political party in our province they would not end up with a single seat in parliament in the next election. Reason? It’s the mandatory involvement that makes the system work and people don't want it changed. That’s why our health care costs are half (per person) of the U.S’s and yet our life expectancy is higher and infant mortality rates are lower. Would you still say it’s unjust if essentially everyone agrees with mandatory involvement?

Thanks
Steve

[Homer]

Thrombomodulin,

Note the following, in particular the underlined parts:

Romans 13:1-7 (New King James Version)

1. Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Here Paul repeats what Jesus said: pay your taxes. And there seems to be two functions God has ordained government to perform. One is as a minister to us for good (agathos), i. e. that which is salutary, which apparently would include doing good, as opposed to exclusively protecting us from harmful actions of evil people. And who can arue that a loving God would want government to protect us against a bad man with a gun and not protect us against a deadly epidemic? And strictly read, the avenger part would seemingly prevent government from proactively preventing crime and limit it to punishment after the fact.

SteveF wrote:

That’s why our health care costs are half (per person) of the U.S’s and yet our life expectancy is higher and infant mortality rates are lower.

I think this is a fallacious argument; comparing longevity is not comparing the quality of health care. Consider how many US citizens die untimely deaths in wars, in auto accidents, drive by shootings, etc. At a time when deaths in Iraq were running high, there were more teens murdering each other in Illinois than military deaths in Iraq, and it was hardly noticed. As far as the infant death rate goes, that is likely attributable to the lifestyle of the great number of unmarried mothers.

[kaufmannphillips]

thrombomodulin worte:
kaufmannphillips,

We indeed have a very great difference of opinion in these matters: Instead of debating a number of particulars, perhaps a more principled approach is expedient. I will begin by asking these questions:

1) Do you believe that God has placed no limitations whatsoever upon society in regard to what it may demand of the individual?
2) Is there any demand of society to which a dissenting individual can refuse to comply without violating God's law?

(1) Society may not demand the individual to sin.

(2) The dissenting individual may refuse to sin.