I am Christian (in that I try to follow the example and teachings of Christ), and yeah. Exactly.

The Good Samaritan isn’t just another parable–it is the fundamental story of what it means to be a Christian. The reason that Jesus asked “now, which one of these was the neighbor?” is because “love thy neighbor” is absolutely critical to Christianity. Anyone claiming otherwise can’t really claim to be Christian–although apparently that doesn’t stop ‘em from trying to.

Why am I saying these things, and not, say, the Pope? That asshole should leave a comment, too!

I just don’t understand what all of these people are so up in arms about. Death panels? WTF. You gotta be kidding me. Plus, half these folks that are bitching are on Medicare. What do they think that is? The health industry is by no stretch of the imagination being nationalized. All of these folks need to stop watching Glenn Beck and sock in their mouths.

the real problem is that the u.s. government is trying to fill roles that it wasn’t initially intended to fill. everyone is caught up in the question of how they should fix problems that are raised instead of first asking the much simpler question of whether or not it’s the government’s job to fix them.

a free market, whose economy operates independently from its state would never ask the question of how the government would address health care issues. it would allow the evolutionary forces of the market (both self-interested and altruistic) to find the best answers to this and all other questions which relate to the market.

having someone that you didn’t vote for make a choice that you don’t agree with and then threatening imprisonment to coerce you to pay taxes to fund that choice *is* immoral.

@Anon I approved your comment because you don’t come off like a brainless mouth breather.

But, you’re confusing a real civics argument with a theoretical one. This is how our government and our society works, and no amount of closing your eyes and wishing it not to be will change that.

And, by your last line, I am sorry that you find democracy so unbearable. I think you’ll find that you’ll get through it just fine. I mean, I was able to get through the last 8 years of rampant idiocy and watching my friends get shipped off into harms way without doing anything too rash.

Anon -

I’m with you up to a point. In general, a free market is indeed the most efficient way to make a market. But there are of course prerequisites to a free market, including freedom of action by all market players, sufficient information for all market participants, and sufficient competition to make the price-finding function of a market actually work.

In the United States, it seems like the health-care market has failed, in that that are somewhere around 47 to 50 million people who cannot get hralth care at a price they can afford, and some who cannot get health care at any price. Now this is not a problem in the market for, say, Hummers. Not everyone needs one nor does everyone want one. However, health care is not only a personal good it is a societal good. When a market for a societal good like health care – or for reasonably priced food or for clean water or any number of other societal goods – fails, as it has in this case, then we have to examine the structures impeding the market from working. And sometimes onyl government can do that. If there werenot 47-50 million without adequate health-care, we would not be having this debate.

And as a Christian minister, I totally agree with our blog host – I personally believe it is a Christian moral duty to help with this issue. The two things Jesus did in his earthly ministry before the Passion was to teach – and to heal. And he did a lot of that. We are called to do the same.

RFSJ

“the real problem is that the u.s. government is trying to fill roles that it wasn’t initially intended to fill. everyone is caught up in the question of how they should fix problems that are raised instead of first asking the much simpler question of whether or not it’s the government’s job to fix them.”

Unfortunately in the real world, the one you and I live in, the free market has demonstrably failed us. Government intervention is the only viable alternative, because the industry has no reason at all to fix itself and face it, they never will without someone telling them to. It will just continue to spiral out of control and it is absolute willful ignorance to think otherwise. And yes, it IS the government’s job to fix this sort of thing. They, not the Dollar, not YHWH, are the final arbiter of the legal aspect of the social contract we are all a part of in this country. That’s what a Government DOES, it GOVERNS.

“a free market, whose economy operates independently from its state would never ask the question of how the government would address health care issues. it would allow the evolutionary forces of the market (both self-interested and altruistic) to find the best answers to this and all other questions which relate to the market.”

No it wouldn’t, and no it hasn’t. It would do the same thing it always does: make as much money as possible under as few restrictions and as little oversight as possible. When I know someone who can’t get health insurance because they have ALLERGIES the system has already failed. Besides, when you begin to treat peoples lives on the same theoretical level as money and property, you have effectively become a sociopath.

“having someone that you didn’t vote for make a choice that you don’t agree with and then threatening imprisonment to coerce you to pay taxes to fund that choice *is* immoral.”

That’s how I feel about my tax money being spent to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans. This money, however, would actually _help_ people. How terrible.

What sort of health care did Jesus HIMSELF provide during His earthly life?

There are several organizations and individuals who help help out with medical care and medical bills. Tulsa has a mobile clinic called, “the Good Samaritan” where doctors, nurses and others volunteer their time and money to help others, and I myself have donated my time to them and personally paid someone’s medical bill because I was able to and wanted to.
I’m sorry, I don’t trust the government organizing anymore health care. They already have medicaid and medicare. That and I have read parts of the Health bill. Gradual Government take over in my opinion. It is sad that people don’t help others in need when they are able to, but people should have a choice if they want to give or not. I however choose to be like the INDIVIDUAL Samaritan and give of myself as I can.

First off, the parable you quoted is a wonderful lesson. This parable was given to show how pride gets in the way of service. It is a “heart matter” this parable of the Good Samaritan was addressing. If the Priest or Levite were forced to help the wounded man the lesson of the heart would have been lost.

Since you used a biblical story, remember that this same Bible talks about stealing, taking something away from a person. True gifting is a “matter of the heart” demonstrated in the story of the Good Samaritan. I don’t know of anyone who is happy to slug off to work to pay taxes. We worked 1/4th of 2009 to pay our taxes. http://actionamerica.org/taxecon/taxfrdmclk.shtml One of the most fundamental rights of man under our constitution is the right to property. When the government can take (tax) property from those who earned it, you not longer have a democracy, but a tyranny. When this is done the free man is no longer free. The Good Samaritan gave freely from his heart and from his OWN assets.

How does all this fit into the current health care debate? First off, some people are in fear of the unknown, which is fomenting all the uproar. There IS a history of government not doing a very good job of financial management. And so far in this administration, many projections by its advisors have proven to be way off the mark from what the public was told.

Why should our federal government which has already completely plundered the Social Security System and Medicare System, be trusted to make a NHI system cost effective and/or trusted? Social Security was NEVER set up as a trust fund. From the beginning the earnings were put into the general fund, and was spent. Now the feds need more money in the general fund. In actuality this NHI money grab is NOT about health care, it IS about throwing coins into the federal coffers to fund other programs, like the feds taking over banks, car companies, make work jobs and to pay on the daily huge loans America is making. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ If this passes, it will be the greatest redistribution of wealth in the United States (which smacks of Marxism) which means a greater loss of freedoms.

You might find the history of The CES, Counsel on Economic Security, which addressed government medical care back 1934 enlightening. And how that history influences what is happening in DC today. http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/cesmedical.html

This has to be the best, and most concise, discussion on the issue I’ve seen. Thanks for the post.

Anon is another one that is confusing the issue. His/her first sentence is “the real problem is that the u.s. government is trying to fill roles that it wasn’t initially intended to fill. ” The REAL problem is the state of health care, not “trying to fill roles”……… which is a political philosophy.

@zach i appreciate your actual / theoretical point. it is completely valid, and one of the main reasons comments like mine don’t usually seem immediately productive or applicable, given that things are the way they are. i just wanted to point out that in a discussion about oughts and government, accountability and consistency is the most important ought, and in the u.s., it is almost unfailingly an afterthought.

i don’t find the concept of democracy unbearable. what is unsettling is that a healthy, properly-functioning democracy is predicated upon transparency and an intelligent and well-informed public, both of which the u.s. falls short of maintaining or really of encouraging. i think i can do a better job putting my own money that i worked for to good use.

@RFSJ “we have to examine the structures impeding the market from working”

i agree. my view is that the government regulations that have already been introduced into the health care market are the primary cause of the barriers to entry and quality of care dropping in the first place, and that in all probability, additional regulation would worsen the situation rather than help. outside of health care, other examples of far-reaching government programs that were started with the best intentions and a clear goal in mind (“no child left behind” and the wars on drugs and terror to name a few) have the opposite outcome of their stated intention, at great cost to taxpayers.

@tim you are pointing at a government-regulated market and saying it is a problem whose solution is government regulation.

I never like how non-Christians try to tell Christians what their religious priorities should be. The truth is that the church is extremely involved in the medical care field. Whole denominations run and fund hospitals (Methodist, Baptist, ect.). The ER in these hospitals never turns anyone away, and in many cases absorb the costs of non-payment. … Read MoreThe church in some cases provides low income health care services (look up Church Health in Memphis). Some churches set up free clinics for basic health care needs. The church sends medical missionaries all over the world. Just because we realize what tyranny would happen with governmental control over the public’s health doesn’t mean we don’t want people to be cared for. There are many outlets for people to get the care they need. Many people just want it to be handed to them without working for it.

Good post Zach. It’s an intriguing question why the main opposition to healthcare reform aligns with Christianity, and a question the media has not really asked- why the hypocrisy?

Now don’t get too distracted with all this seriousness- its high time I get some more nonsensical rambling from you.

@anon. I certainly am saying that. I don’t think any rational person would want to live in a world where the market is unregulated. What exactly do you think the health care industry would do if regulations were relaxed? You say it would lower the barrier for entry into the market, but how and at what cost? High blood pressure? Dropped from coverage unless you pay $3k/month. Arthritis? $5k. Under the _current system_ I know a woman who’s insurance (the only choice offered by her employer) only covers pap smears if they come up negative. Got cancer indicators? Fuck you. So who’s to stop them? The crypto-magical forces of “The Free Market” sure won’t, because healthcare is not a traditional consumer good that follows the normal rules of economics. You quite literally cannot go without it, sooner or later you WILL need a doctor, quite possibly with death as the alternative. How many lives must be lost, sacrificed on the altar of free market philosophy?

I understand the hesitation when looking at the government as an arbiter, but I think that is because one entire political party has staked it’s reputation on actively hamstringing the very government they are attempting to run. Of course things aren’t going to be efficient if your entire political philosophy is that it should rightly fail.

You’re also right that the US has a long way to go to hit the optimum level of government transparency (Obama has been dropping the ball on this terribly), but the free market has NONE. In a less-regulated market they can tell you whatever the hell they want, true or not. The government is ostensibly answerable to the people since representatives can be voted out, but not so with low-regulation markets where the companies could effectively write their own rules with the sole purpose of lining their pockets.

Faith in the free market to solve humanitarian problems is so astoundingly naive it makes me want to punch myself.

@Jon: so you are basically saying that being allowed to live is something you shouldn’t get “without working for it”? How the hell do you call yourself a Christian (if indeed you are)?

Basically, I didn’t say that at all. You put words in my proverbial mouth. Reread and then understand what I wrote for the intent it was written.

And as a Christian, being allowed to live is not my providence, nor is it the providence of my fellow man. It’s the providence of God alone. That being said, to live, work is required.

@ tim you have assumptions about what would happen in a free market, but they seem to mostly be based on the mindset of a market dominated by government-sanctioned monopolies and supporting regulations limiting competition. so what’s your example of a real-world free market that actually behaves this way? as far as health care goes, costs of care, barriers to entry, and inflation were lower and quality of care for the price paid was higher before Nixon-era managed care came along. this isn’t really even debated as far as i’ve seen.

as @elly pointed out, even in our current system, we have charitable organizations that help out with health care. before managed care, there were actually more such organizations – churches, volunteer hospitals, etc. – that provided health care to those that couldn’t afford it. another example of how the competition of an unregulated market functions are services not covered by insurance, such as plastic surgeries and keratotomies, which do not have the associated inflation of prices.

also, i’m curious to know which political party you are saying is “actively hamstringing” the government? doesn’t your argument for government intervention somewhat parallel my argument for the market itself? you say that voters will decide the best representation who will in turn decide what is best for the market. according to that view, though, why would voters allow representatives who would, whether through incompetence or as you say by design, sabotage the system? isn’t your admission that such political influence has more control over supposed representation than voters an indication that government isn’t fulfilling its trusted purpose?

@anon No, my assumptions are about the government staying out of the way and allowing the market to create and sustain it’s own monopolies. Applying even the slightest bit of game theory to economics will show that with billions and billions of dollars to spend, it’s damn easy for companies working at Cournot equilibrium to keep the market in a stranglehold duopoly (or triopoly, or whatever), and no amount of wishful thinking about the wonders of the free market could change that. The result is the Mafia, the result is Somalia.

To say that it was the regulation that drove up the price and “quality” of care is a pretty gradeschool case of conflating causation with causality. There are a host of other factors at work including types of treatments (no such thing as an MRI or CAT scan back then), they types of illnesses that are diagnosed and dealt with (AIDS? What’s that?), the aging demographic shift (thanks, boomers!), and even the lifestyle changes of the American population (the obesity epidemic didn’t really start until after the 60s).

Your point about plastic surgeries and the like are true because those are LUXURY GOODS and can therefor be more closely tied to traditional economic ideals. People can shop around for those, people can make informed consumer decisions about them. That’s great. When your kid gets pneumonia, or when you fall down the stairs and break a leg, you don’t have that option. Traditional health care, especially from a serious or terminal source, does not give a person the freedom to choose like that. You take what you can get or your quality of life is drastically reduced (or you die outright). THAT is the reason that healthcare costs are so high, because there is literally no alternative to getting it. You can go without a new nose a lot easier than you can go without insulin.

And it’s the Republicans who are actively sabotaging the government. The Democratic party is merely spineless and ineffectual. However they continue to be elected because human beings are _not_ rational actors and very often do not understand the full extent of the policies supported by those they elect, or through the force of sheer willful ignorance and self-deception will actively vote against their best interests.

@tim Cournot competition is based on a fixed number of firms that compete on output quantity and not on price, which you wouldn’t have in a free market. you wouldn’t have regulation barring competition, so you can have as many providers as the market would support (versus the decrease in providers the u.s. has seen since it increased its regulation), and they would all be free to compete on both price and quantity. you’re right that if the market were free, the only way to discourage competition would be through violence. however, with local and national governments fulfilling their proper role of defense of their citizens, that discouragement too would be gone.

to properly explore the concept of causation versus dismissing it outright, you could simply look at the inflation of prices of medical products and technologies that existed before increased regulation, like syringes and tongue depressors. the other problem is that your changes in technology, disease, and demographics doesn’t account for the inflation of health care costs well beyond the general market inflation. again, these things aren’t disputed.

your description of traditional consumer economics is a description of a free market. your description of “traditional health care” with its lack of freedom, choice, and competition is a description of an overly-regulated market, and this is not the only model of health care. there are other countries with less regulation and more competition where this description doesn’t stick.

You give a description of people as generally irrational, uninformed or unintelligent, and selfish. Yet a government body – being composed entirely of these same people – are the ones whose authority you want to defer to?

@anon your image of an endpoint where all these firms will happily co-exist and people will get affordable healthcare without being gouged is an absolute fantasy. It will never ever happen, because there is infinite demand for their product and they will be able to name their price. Besides, in the current system where a person can legally be dropped from their insurance in the middle of cancer treatment, or decide at the last minute that they’re not going to cover your kid’s organ transplant, what sort of crazy-ass terrible person do you have to be to feel that LESS regulation is the answer? Or do you think that free of oversight they will play nicer? Because you just need to look at what happened with the relaxation of banking restrictions to see what happens when you give these industries a little more rope to hang the consumer. It’s also funny that you then talk about “local and national government fulfilling their proper role of defense of their citizens” and it boggles me that you don’t seem to understand that consumer protection IS defense of its citizens. Defense from economic predation and collusion and exploitation by national (or international) businesses is probably MORE relevant in this day and age than stroking your guns.

And you seem to be overlooking possibly the most basic and simple reason for the inflation of prices for those sorts of goods: greed. They’re going up at this rate because they can and there’s no one to stop them. And under your optimal scenario do you think that these people would allow newcomer firms to the industry to upset their grip? Hell no. The reduction in providers is not due to excessive regulation, it’s due to other firms pushing them out of the nest.

And please, enlighten me, what other countries have less regulation and more competition? And since we’re talking about examples in other countries, nearly every other first world country has UHC in a FAR greater capacity than what anyone in the US is proposing (hell, the public option was stripped out of the current overhaul bill). And they are astoundingly popular. Hell, even the most conservative politicians in the UK are saying they need to put MORE money into the NHS. My friends in England are absolutely speechless when they here about the debate here. A friend of mine was visiting last year when she got hit with a kidney infection and had to blow her entire food budget on antibiotics to avoid organ shutdown. Back home, she could have seen a doctor, gotten a prescription, and been on her way for $20, max. What makes America’s government so uniquely terrible, so catastrophically callous and idiotic, that it wouldn’t be able to implemented here? In short, why do you hate America?

Tongue depressors cost $0.01 apiece. What did they cost before medical regulation?

Marvelous, Keith!

This AM I stumbled across your two-month-old comment on Anne Jackson’s even older blog on health care. Took you up on your invitation to read your blog, and loved it. Now I’ll return the invitation – read any parts of my family’s web site you’d like, but please at least read the first page of the first chapter. And then anything you want. Suffice it to say, we’re with you on this.

It’s heartening to see men like you speaking up. –

Am not positive you’ll see a comment on a blog this old, so if I can find an e-mail address for you, I’ll send you a similar comment that way.

Pete Ahlstrom

Correction: marvelous, Zach (etc).

No idea WHY I called you Keith – but evidently my fingers went right while my brain went left. Or maybe “Keith” was somewhere else on the screen. My daughter found what I’d done. Glad she did.

Apologies, Pete.