Universal health care -- unbiblical socialism

[CactusCarlos]

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/070322

Rev. Mark H. Creech

Universal health care, or government-funded health insurance, is a major issue early on in the presidential campaign. North Carolina's former senator, John Edwards, has been stumping for it in his platform for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton, also a candidate for the presidency, has been pushing for it as far back as when her husband, Bill Clinton, first became president. It's also been a burning issue for state governments such as California and Massachusetts. Even a House Select Committee, in a state as conservative as North Carolina, has been studying the California and Massachusetts models of legislation with the prospect of making an attempt at providing universal health care for the Tar Heel State.

The prospect of government-funded universal health care, however, is another example of America's departure from its strong Judeo-Christian roots and its love affair with socialism. Most Americans are completely unfamiliar with what the Bible teaches about economics. And progressive churches have, unfortunately, dominated the scene by espousing a form of economics that is essentially socialistic principles with a religious veneer. One might even argue the church's loss of influence today is due in part to its support and advancement of the welfare state, which by government pre-emption has siphoned away the church's energy and resources for charitable purposes.

While a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll finds a majority of Americans now say the federal government should provide health insurance to every American, there are strong indications that many who declare their support for government-funded universal heath care fail to understand what it would entail. The poll found "sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes .... Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more." But even if every person currently paying taxes were willing to pay an extra $500 a year, that wouldn't begin to cover the great costs involved in such a program.

The Bible teaches God is a creative and productive being and man, who is made in His image, was created for the same. Economic systems that perpetuate or construct dependence or reward sloth strike at the very heart of what it means to be human. Thus, the apostle Paul admonished the Thessalonians: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (II Thessalonians 3:10) Certainly, those who cannot provide for themselves, despite every effort they can summon, should be helped in the form of charity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that ingenuity and industry are what should be rewarded, while laziness or failure to provide a service the public needs should go unrewarded.

What is inherently immoral about socialistic endeavors is the effort to equalize economic conditions by forcibly redistributing wealth. To get this done, the right to private property, which God gives in the eighth commandment of the Decalogue, is violated. And charity, which according to the Scriptures is supposed to spring willingly from the heart, is instead coerced. Therefore, the image of God in man — his creativity and productivity — is suppressed, while those who are indolent prosper.

What is more, socialistic principles fail to take into account man's depravity — his fall away from God and into sin. The socialist contends if man's environment is changed, he will change. He'll be better to his neighbor. It discounts man's need for redemption in Christ and contends that if all have an equal share, then there is less reason to war and steal, etc. But the fact is socialistic principles change nothing about human nature and only concentrates economic power in the hands of a few sinful individuals who are more able to exploit the public.

Sven Larson, a policy analyst for the John William Pope Civitas Institute, notes all the ways these negatives would play out in a government-funded universal health care system, which is simply a form of socialized medicine.


It would outlaw private health insurance and give government bureaucrats the exclusive right to set reimbursement rates for physicians, clinics and hospitals. This would not only create supply shortages, but would also likely produce a black market health-care system.


It would transform the state into the sole purchaser of medical drugs and equipment, hampering cost containment and inviting corruption.


It would destroy professional freedom for medical professionals. The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.


It would of necessity cap health spending. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, American health providers increase medical technology by 7 percent per year. Such increases are necessary if new technology is to make its way into hospitals and clinics. If the cap for a government-funded universal health-care system like the one proposed in California had been enacted nationwide in 1960, the cumulative effect would have been to lower current technological standards in hospitals to 1982 levels.


One can already see how liberty and justice, which are unalienable rights — God-given rights — are significantly diminished by such a proposal.

Most importantly, since a government-funded universal health-care system would come at a heavy financial burden to the state, one could only imagine how, over time, it would affect right-to-life issues. It most certainly would make abortion and euthanasia readily available. Children with gestational issues of retardation, spina bifida, etc. would likely require abortion. Vulnerable patients such as the chronically ill, disabled or elderly would be allowed to die as in the Terri Schiavo case, or possibly even terminated.

A government-funded universal health-care system will never provide what its champions promise. Why? Because socialism never provides what it promises and neither can socialized medicine. Instead of providing good health coverage for all, it will ultimately lessen the quality of care for all. As Ludwig Von Mises wrote in Liberalism, "There is simply no other choice than this: either abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government." Is the incompetence of the government in responding to the needs of Hurricane Katrina victims so soon removed from America's memory that it's now willing to place its most personal issues — health-care issues regarding quality of life, life and death — into the hands of a federal bureaucracy that would be approximately three times the size of the Pentagon?

Larson rightly argues, "America has the largest private health insurance market in the world. If allowed, this market could provide universal health care for everyone by meeting every need and every budget." He rightly suggests that one key improvement would be to remove the coverage mandates that states impose on private insurance plans. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, there are 1,843 coverage mandates in the U.S. "Coverage mandates are sometimes called 'consumer protection,'" says Larson. "But because coverage mandates increase the cost of insurance they actually force many families to go unprotected by shutting them out from affordable health insurance plans." The answer lies in reducing the cost and stimulating competition between the insurance companies, he says.

Whatever the solution, any plan fostering more dependence on the government is not only extremely dangerous, but immoral. Perhaps the country would do well to consider the warning of John Cotton, a founding father of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: "Let all the world learn to give mortal men no greater power than they are content that they shall use, for use it they will."

[ToastedRachel]

The poll found "sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes .... Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more." But even if every person currently paying taxes were willing to pay an extra $500 a year, that wouldn't begin to cover the great costs involved in such a program.


It will never happen once they have to admit it would be more like 25000 per taxpayer per year for "free" health care for everybody.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It will never happen once they have to admit it would be more like 25000 per taxpayer per year for "free" health care for everybody.

Would that the American people could be clued in on the $13,000/year/student for so-called "free" public education.

[ToastedRachel]

Would that the American people could be clued in on the $13,000/year/student for so-called "free" public education.

I wish they would send home a bill with the kid's report card. Then maybe people would care more what goes on in the schools. I also wish we all got a big tax bill every April 15th. There would be a war on Apr 16th. 

[Chris_]

I wish they would send home a bill with the kid's report card. Then maybe people would care more what goes on in the schools. I also wish we all got a big tax bill every April 15th. There would be a war on Apr 16th. 

The more money = better schools argument never works out.  DC has some of the worst schools in the country, and regularlys spends $12,000 per student.  Here at home, Davidson County spends $8000 per student/year while Williamson County spends $7000.  Williamson County has, by far, the better schools of the two.

There are other factors that enter into the equation.  Williamson County is more affluent and probably has more married families with one parent staying home to raise children than Davidson.

[formerlurker]

I wish they would send home a bill with the kid's report card. Then maybe people would care more what goes on in the schools. I also wish we all got a big tax bill every April 15th. There would be a war on Apr 16th. 

The more money = better schools argument never works out.  DC has some of the worst schools in the country, and regularlys spends $12,000 per student.  Here at home, Davidson County spends $8000 per student/year while Williamson County spends $7000.  Williamson County has, by far, the better schools of the two.

There are other factors that enter into the equation.  Williamson County is more affluent and probably has more married families with one parent staying home to raise children than Davidson.

DC is one of the highest cost of living areas of the country.  Cost per student would certainly be higher as teacher salary would have to be reflective of cost of living.

Inner city should be compared to other inner city schools. Period.  The second you start comparing them to other states, or suburbs the argument has fallen apart.

Education in this country has been systematically destroyed by teacher's unions.  Superintendents and School Boards/Committees are no longer allowed to set the bar as in doing so it will always be in conflict with the teacher's contract.

I took a tiny step on toward my soapbox on this but will jump back down as the topic gets me too damn angry.

[NHSparky]

Better yet, just cut a check for your taxes like you do any other bill.  THEN you'll see real tax reform.

And fl has a point--you can't compare south Boston or Worcester to some of the smaller towns in MA or Manchester to Exeter.  Just isn't fair aside from the fact the larger systems seem to be more corrupt and top-heavy with administration.

[formerlurker]

It will never happen once they have to admit it would be more like 25000 per taxpayer per year for "free" health care for everybody.

Would that the American people could be clued in on the $13,000/year/student for so-called "free" public education.

I think that given the fiscal climate that most cities and towns are faced with every year (and now is budget time), most homeowners are very aware of what their school district budget is.

[formerlurker]

Better yet, just cut a check for your taxes like you do any other bill.  THEN you'll see real tax reform.

And fl has a point--you can't compare south Boston or Worcester to some of the smaller towns in MA or Manchester to Exeter.  Just isn't fair aside from the fact the larger systems seem to be more corrupt and top-heavy with administration.

Without a doubt.

[NHSparky]

It will never happen once they have to admit it would be more like 25000 per taxpayer per year for "free" health care for everybody.

Would that the American people could be clued in on the $13,000/year/student for so-called "free" public education.

I think that given the fiscal climate that most cities and towns are faced with every year (and now is budget time), most homeowners are very aware of what their school district budget is.

I know I sure as hell am--I see it every time I get my property tax breakdown.  As I see it I'm giving the city of Rochester about $2200 a year and the state another $600 for education alone, and I don't even have any kids.

Damn it's nice when the state breaks down where your money goes, even if it is way too much (and yet here I am bitching despite the fact I don't pay sales or income tax.)

[LadyLiberty]

I am glad this article illustrates how the Bible is against socialism, as I have heard too many liberals USE the Bible to say that Jesus was a socialist  It never fails to amaze me when people who don't even believe in the Bible and/or Jesus like to use it and Him to their own advantage.

Oh, and naturally a source like the NYTimes and CBS are going to have polls look favorably to "their side", since they would naturally be polling their own constituents.

46% of Republicans are in favor of socialized medicine and are in favor of raising taxes in order to provide it?? I am calling bullshit on that.

[Carl]

There is no way to even begin to estimate the cost of "free" healthcare unless there was a limit placed on it.

They claim that it will take the profit out of the system but how would they stop unscrupulous providers from churning medical procedures?
Come back and see me next week for about 10 seconds and a bill fired off to the government.

Who is liable in the libs world of litigation,who do the John Edwards sue at that point?

On top of all that how does one ever guess what the level of participation would be if there was no economic reason to not see a doctor.
Every runny nose,every ache and pain that are just part of life,will there be restrictions?

It is unimaginable.

[LadyLiberty]

There is no way to even begin to estimate the cost of "free" healthcare unless there was a limit placed on it.

*Very good point....especially considering all the illegals coming in...with all their babies...

Who is liable in the libs world of litigation,who do the John Edwards sue at that point?

*They will just be able to focus more on other private businesses, and go after them with a vengeance, making sure to screw up another private industry and thus allowing the government to get it's greedy hands on dominating it as well.

On top of all that how does one ever guess what the level of participation would be if there was no economic reason to not see a doctor.
Every runny nose,every ache and pain that are just part of life,will there be restrictions?

*Oh, see they will deter that on the phone...and calling to get an appointment, if you don't just have to walk in first thing and wait your turn...will BE a deterrent in and of itself. They will most likely require that you have a fever of a certain temp. Think of all the untreated sinus infections, etc. that you generally go in for that you won't be able to.

[Carl]

That only touches a part of the issue.

As can be seen by the DUmmies there will be an explosion of mental health treatments and those seeking it.

One thing I have always shook my head at is the arguement that if we have preventitive visits in childhood it will somehow be cheaper by reducing long term care later in life.

When I ask how many visits will it take to prevent a stroke or an accident or things relating to lifestyle decisions made when one is older there is never an answer because there simply isn`t one.