This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Exactly! I knew you would eventually see it my way! Charity belongs in the hands of private individuals, not communist bureaucrats. Every self-starting act of morality could inspire another 37 blog-posts... you'll never find that kind of altruistic fever buzzing about a government office paying health claims with federal tax dollars. Every voluntary act of goodwill is a news-worthy occasion... and if we take my favorite philosopher's sayings in Matthew 25 seriously, it just might save people's souls. (Paying taxes doesn't.)Exciting as Miracle Treat Day was, selling ice cream to raise money for medical expenses is not the most efficient way to handle health care costs. Charity just isn't enough. Let's hear from someone with better moral chops than the Madville Times:
We are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside . . . but one day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that a system that produces beggars needs to be repaved. We are called to be the Good Samaritan, but after you lift so many people out of the ditch you start to ask, maybe the whole road to Jericho needs to be repaved.
--Martin Luther King, Jr. "A Time to Break the Silence" (sermon, Riverside Church, New York, April 4, 1967). Quoted by Shane Claiborne in The Irresistible Revolution, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2006, p. 153.
Charity is great; social (read socialist if you like, red-baiters) reform that fixes the problems charity tries to mitigate is greater.
If we can not trust the gubnit (government) to administer a health care system, why in HELL do we trust the gubnit with thermonuclear weapons?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, rfb! I'm surprised these folks even trust the government to build a decent highway.
ReplyDelete"Charity just isn't enough."
ReplyDeleteCharity isn't enough... so your solution is to coerce citizens to pay for one another's health bills? And coerce the rich to pay more than the poor for the same level of care?
This is the morality that supersedes charity?
My, my, how self-interest taints one's view.
I'd prefer to persuade everyone to recognize their social responsibility as Americans, Christians, or just plain decent people to help their neighbors in the most effective way possible, a single-payer health care system. But even if I can't persuade everybody, the morality of democracy beats the morality of anarchy... or callous and inconsistent individualism.
ReplyDeleteAnd whose self-interest is tainting whose view? I'm already buying into an insurance system that pays other people's bills (including higher premiums because of other people's bad choices). I'd just like to see my money go to actually helping sick people, not buying Porsches for insurance executives. I'm ready to pay for everyone's health care -- even yours -- to increase the general level of freedom that everyone in the nation enjoys. And when I'm making a million bucks as a computer doctor, I'll happily shell out even more for those darn poor people who don't deserve my help but will get it anyway. From those who are given much, much is expected. With great power -- with great wealth -- comes great responsibility.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteYou consistently retort that those of us advocating for a single-payer health insurance system are doing so out of mere self-interest (and apparently you think that is Cory's sole reason for supporting such a system). I know we've had this discussion before, so forgive me for asking yet again, but isn't it possible that we are advocating this out of concern for others?
You'll get no objection from me that people ought to be motivated by a desire help someone else with their health-care bills (or food bills or heating bills, etc). Good people will donate money to help the less capable and less fortunate, and I'm glad that you count yourself as one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the most effective way to ruin a good idea is to force it. Fraternity is a great thing, but not fraternity via duress. Peace is a good thing, but not peace under the fist of a tyrant. I wish that every (potentially) rich person had the heart you do for other sick people... but to coerce their charity is to damn it. "To remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts."
And as much as you (an atheist, ironically) like to wave about the adjective 'Christian', it isn't the right term. Your Christian approach to health care isn't one of prayers, sermons, sacrifices, witnessing, volunteering, and invoking Christ's name for healing... it's one instead of politics, law, and prison. It's more like the Inquisition of the 12th century than the love-inspired evangelism of the 1st. (Which I suppose is 'Christian' per se, but not the attractive type you are appealing to.)
If Our Lord never forced good ideas upon us, why should we force good ideas upon others? He pleads for us to repent, but doesn't make us repent. He instructs us to help our neighbor, but doesn't take control of our hands and move them to their aid. He even wished to be spared an unjust execution, but let us have our free will with His body despite being able to call down a thousand angels.
If you are serious about pursuing Christian virtues, then you need to put aside these questions of how to govern, how to rule, or how to coerce your fellow man... and start asking questions about how to serve him.
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant."
"I know we've had this discussion before, so forgive me for asking yet again, but isn't it possible that we are advocating this out of concern for others?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I've had enough conversations with Cory (and read plenty of blog-posts) about his premium increases and deductibles to know that he does consider how these issues affect his personal finances. (And I know which side he thinks favors said finances.)
But even assuming for a minute that his mind is so wrapped up in the altruism of the concept so as not to even think about his own checkbook, we still have to ask ourselves what kind of altruism are we talking about? Compare, for example, legislating universal health care to the prospect of Cory running a telethon. The telethon makes all of its money by donations, whereas the government takes it over the muzzle of a gun. The latter may very well help some people, in the same way that Don Corleone opens his pocketbook of illegitimate income to help his family. But that "help" does not come altruistically.
Anyone arguing for universal health care is knocking on the door of our wealthier citizens and threatening them with jail if they don't hand over a certain percentage of their income. That tactic just does not sit well with me. It's perfectly fine to ask rich people (or poor people) for money... but I don't see how any good person should desire another person's money to be taken by force. Since you seem to be in favor of such an action, I would be interested in hearing your case for it. (And similarly, are you in favor of churches imposing a mandatory tithe upon members? Upon non-member people who live in the neighborhood of the church?)
Yeah, my idea applies to lots of other things that are already a part of our tax system... things that we can discuss one-by-one if you are really interested. But just because we are already stomaching a lot of money-taken-by-force doesn't give us a go-ahead to pile on more.
"All political power is at best a necessary evil: but it is least evil when its sanctions are modest and commonplace, when it claims no more than to be useful or convenient and sets itself strictly limited objectives."
How about the system that Massachusetts uses? Everyone has to have insurance. I heard the system explained the other day, but it's too late tonight for my brain to function and remember exactly how it works. But it seemed simple.
ReplyDeleteI know a couple who is having a baby. One half of this marriage is in college on about the eight year plan and chooses to work very part-time at a job he likes but pays little and has no benefits. The other half of this marriage also chooses to work at a job she likes but pays little and has no benefits. So of course there is no insurance except for his thru school. This pregnancy was planned, and of course I and all the other taxpayers are picking up the bill.
Neither of these people sees any need to be responsible for their own bills and look for a job that will pay enough to pay these bills. They choose this lifestyle. Why is it my problem and responsibility to support it?
And Corey, in true Dem fashion, you managed to sneak in a dig at the Republicans for the bridge collapse in MN. You know, there have been Dems in office too since that bridge was built.
Quick note: Nonnie: I did not intend any dig on the NN bridge collapse, and I apologize for creating the misperception. May I ask from which text you draw this conclusion? That isn't a partisan issue for me -- I leave that one to the snipier bloggers.
ReplyDelete"Indeed, rfb! I'm surprised these folks even trust the government to build a decent highway."
ReplyDeleteThis was where I inferred the dig. If not meant that way, then I humbly apologize and say sorry. It's just that the Dems have been politicing this issue as the fault of this administration for not advocating better infrastructure, and I disagree with their assertion.
David Bergan asked, ..."are you in favor of churches imposing a mandatory tithe upon members?"
ReplyDeleteJust an interesting note. In one of the Scandinavian countries they do put a tax on church members, which means that most people don't officially belong to any church.
David: "And as much as you (an atheist, ironically) like to wave about the adjective 'Christian', it isn't the right term. Your Christian approach to health care isn't one of prayers, sermons, sacrifices, witnessing, volunteering, and invoking Christ's name for healing... it's one instead of politics, law, and prison."
ReplyDelete--just like your approach on abortion, right?
on prayers, sermons, etc: Oh, David, you know me: I'm in the Tom Joad/Jim Casy wing of the church:
Jim Casy: "All along I seen it.... Ever' place we stopped I seen it. Folks hungry for side-meat, an' when they get it, they ain't fed. An' when they'd get so hungry they couldn' stan' it no more, why, they'd ast me to pray for 'em, an' sometimes I done it.... I use ta think that'd cut 'er.... Use ta rip off a prayer an' all the troubles'd stick to that prayer like flies on flypaper, an' the prayer'd go a-sailin' off, a-takin' them troubles along. But it don' work no more."
Tom Joad: "Prayer never brought in no side-meat. Takes a shoat to bring in pork."
Jim Casy: "An' Almighty God never raised no wages."
[John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, 1939, Penguin Steinbeck Centennial Edition 2002, p. 250]
Nonnie: "I know a couple who is having a baby. One half of this marriage is in college on about the eight year plan and chooses to work very part-time at a job he likes but pays little and has no benefits. The other half of this marriage also chooses to work at a job she likes but pays little and has no benefits. So of course there is no insurance except for his thru school. This pregnancy was planned, and of course I and all the other taxpayers are picking up the bill."
ReplyDeleteHooray! I'm glad we can help two young people do work they truly enjoy and find fulfilling, even if society won't give them a decent wage for that work, and help them start a family and bring another lovely child into the world. Let us know if you need anything else, kids! :-)
Nonnie: The Massachussetts plan, which forces everyone to buy health insurance? David Bergan will go ape over that one.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, the Massachussetts plan is a sham that takes away the last bit of choice in the system. It's scary to live without health insurance, but when I face an insurance agent, he at least knows I'm not compelled to buy a policy. That freedom of choice has to create at least a little downward pressure on prices. Mandate health insurance, and the private insurers have us that much more firmly by the tail. The Massachussetts doesn't provide coverage; it forces us to fork over more profits to private companies. If the government is going to force me to cough up money, I want that money to go to the government for the common good, not some profiteering insurance CEO.
Nonnie: apology accepted. Remember, I like to think I'm at the very least not a typical blogger, and hopefully not a typical Democrat. Click on the build a decent highway link to see the intended reference. :-)
ReplyDelete"--just like your approach on abortion, right?"
ReplyDeleteI don't specifically remember labeling my position on abortion as being "Christian"... but even if I did, let's be sure we're making an apt comparison. Criminal justice, to be justice at all, must use coercion... you have to handcuff the murderer to protect the innocent. Charity, on the other hand, ceases to be charity when it is coerced.
Where you left me hanging on the abortion thread was where I asked you to show me that an embryo/fetus is objectively not a human being in development. Because if it is, then we have to consider abortion no different from infanticide. For two months I've been checking that thread every day waiting for a substantive response, and the best you can do is quip in passing about it on a totally separate thread... without addressing the main issue at all.
And even on this topic, you're again skirting the main point. I don't hear an explanation as to the moral grounds for taking large amounts of money by force... instead I get a half-baked attack on the efficacy of prayer and sermons (ironically, from someone who just a day earlier was implying that Christianity was noble).
Your reader demands to know your true motives. If you favor universal health care merely out of self-interest, at least be honest about it. Otherwise, if you truly think it is something Christian or altruistic, show how you morally justify taking disproportionate amounts of money from people by force.
Give David credit -- he makes it a challenge to issue satisfactory and complete responses. And I knew I was asking for trouble mentioning the A-word. Oh well. We'll get to that.
ReplyDelete"Charity ceases to be charity when it is coerced." As I said, Charity isn't enough. People are going bankrupt because of medical bills. Insurance companies are making medical decisions instead of doctors. Resources are being used inefficiently. I'm not urging mroe charity; I'm urging sensible, effective public policy to solve the problems that charity obviously isn't solving.
"a half-baked attack on the efficacy of prayer and sermons (ironically, from someone who just a day earlier was implying that Christianity was noble)"
--No, Steinbeck is not half-baked, and he is not attacking Christianity itself. Jim Casy and Tom Joad are giving voice to the idea that even if Christians are saved by faith, that faith calls them to do good works. I'll leave it to my readers to pick up The Grapes of Wrath for themselves and see what they think of Steinbeck's vision of Christianity.
My true motives? Self-interest? Sure, it's in there. I stand to benefit immensely from a society that functions efficiently and justly. So does everyone else. Dr. King could have said the same thing about his pursuit of civil rights. He stood to benefit personally from getting equal rights for blacks. he was able to synthesize that self-interest with his Christian beliefs. Does that self-interest negate the validity of Dr. King's political and moral arguments?
As for the least important issue in David's comment, well, it's going to have to wait. The A-word debate just isn't that high on my priority list. More later!
"Resources are being used inefficiently. I'm not urging more charity; I'm urging sensible, effective public policy to solve the problems that charity obviously isn't solving."
ReplyDeleteYou're getting closer, but this still isn't an explanation of how taking disproportionate amounts of money from people by force is morally defensible. You're just trying to play the illusionist's game of making "coercion" look like "effective public policy".
Consider the propaganda of any fascist in history, and it will sound exactly the same. The "effectiveness" of tyranny isn't in question. There's no doubt that Benito was effective at getting the trains to run on time... that Khrushchev was effective at getting a satellite into space... or that Castro is effective at getting basic health care to his people. A tyrant can achieve anything he puts his mind to.
The singular question that you keep ignoring is whether or not tyranny and coercion is right.
This would be more substantial if I didn't have two million pages to read for a class, but here are my two cents:
ReplyDeletefirst cent: when you spend one trillion dollars on a pre-emptive ware of agression/occupation, you are not spending it on natiional DOMESTIC infrastructure [Remember all those dark skinned people at the other end of the mighty mississippi stranded on rooftops and struggling to survive like animals in the "superdome" not two years ago?]. The Dems would be apeshit crazy not to point this out, as it is undeniable.
and
second cent: The Jebus of the four canonical gospels speaks a bajillion words (I counted them and then rounded up) about how we are to treat the poor and vulnerable in society and zero about gay but sex or outlawing family planning. He commands us to treat the least of these as we would treat Him.
WE ARE THE GUBNIT... we are the government. Our national budget says exactly who we are as a people, as a socieity. What We The People spend Our money on says who we are. Unfortunately, of late, our budget lables us a war mongoring, destructive, violent people. Jesus Wept.
Michael P. Reese
PS: I am so proud to come from the Great White North. I miss you guys.
PPS: I received the best health care of my life as an active duty soldier in the US army, a most assuradely socialist style single payer system.
"[Jesus] speaks a bajillion words... about how we are to treat the poor and vulnerable in society"
ReplyDeleteBut not a single syllable about relying on the government or coercing other people to help them.
we are the government
ReplyDelete"we are the government"
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, then let's be sure not to act like a tyrant... which hopefully is a political principle we can all agree on.
But David, is the government supposed to sit back and coerce nothing? Why coerce people not to thieve and kill? Why coerce doctors not to carry out the medical procedures they know are the safest ways to protect the lives of mothers? Why coerce parents to send their children to school? Why coerce anyone to pay taxes for any service from the government? Why... why aren't you an anarchist?
ReplyDelete"Why... why aren't you an anarchist?"
ReplyDeleteA few things do have to be done by coercion. Protection from violent crime, serious irresponsibility, and fraud... drafting an army if we're being invaded... and I guess city zoning laws (usually) make a lot of sense.
Things like roads and rails (and NASA) should be funded by the people who use them (ie sales tax on gas or toll booths at every exit/space station).
That's the advantage of a sales tax program, you can tailor it so that taxes from certain purchases go directly toward funding related projects. (Just like Blizzard sales go directly to miracle network kids.) Thus, if I don't want to send rockets into outer space, I just have to resist the temptation to buy Star-Trek paraphernalia. And then our necessities would be tax free (ie milk, bread, and anything in the produce aisle... probably houses and non-designer clothes, too).
An income tax, by comparison, is a lot more of the "gun at the door" type of tax. If I don't pay the man now, I'm going to jail. (Although withholding does a deceptive, and effective, job of alleviating this... it's so good that many people actually enjoy tax time now, not realizing that the government had actually been "saving" their money all year with 0% interest. And then some employees even bump up their withholding so that next April is even better. sigh)
On the other hand, if I refuse to pay a sales tax, well, I just don't get to have the Star Trek paraphernalia.
Now that I stopped and thought about it from this angle for a few minutes, I think I could actually get behind universal health care if it took in all its revenue from a sales tax on things that make people unhealthy (donuts, Doritoes, McDonald's, cigarettes, liquor, asbestos manufacturers, drivers' licenses for 14-year-olds and 90-year-olds). The thing I really don't like about the standard Madville Times UHC plan is the idea that some people are paying more and getting less. If they want to give more to needy people, great, there are plenty of programs ready to help them get their money to the right people. But we shouldn't force that decision on them with the threat of prison. With the Bergan UHC plan, each cheeseburger/whiskey/cigar you buy puts a little money away for that bypass/liver/lung surgery you're going to need. And obviously, fitness clubs and bicycles would probably be tax-free. Maybe even get a little subsidy?
... Stop. Wait. David... what are you saying? ... Subsidies are the epitome of all the communist evil you despise. How could you even think that? It's 4AM and you had better get to bed before any other ludicrous thoughts accidentally slip into this comment.
Interesting that it was precisely your position on the cigarette sales tax issue last fall that got me thinking along these lines. Thanks for the insight.
ReplyDelete