I feel like writing now, so I'll write on politics. Plus I sent in my fee for the Pasadena Republicans Club so it seems appropriate.
Health Care
It seems weird to me that suddenly our society see health care as a right, not a privilege. It hasn't been seen as such until recently - apparently when it becomes really good it becomes a right. I don't see it as such but rather a privilege, so as a taxpayer it's not my responsibility to pay for my i.e. brother's health care but his. I am a capitalist so I think if he wants health care, he should arrange such. This requires that the disadvantaged won't have health care, but I don't want to sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the few.
I don't even buy universal child health care; I see this as the parent's responsibility. Parents are responsible for their child's education, shelter, health, spiritual well-being, etc. Likewise, the idea that as a taxpayer I'm responsible for my nieces/nephew's health care seems weird to me. Again, as part of a society this means some children will be disadvantaged.
Of course, universal health care would be great if cheap and easy, but I think the price is too high. There's no country where I look and say "I'd like to have their system." On the trade-off between cost and access, I'd keep the ("evil") health care companies in business.
Capital Punishment
I'm ok with it. The idea that someone has done something so heinous that as a society we remove their right to live seems fine. People often rhetorically ask, "What would Jesus do?" in hopes of making those like me feel guilty (i.e. turn the other cheek). I would say that Jesus didn't guide us in how to respond as a society but rather as an individual and a church - it was always personal with Him. So Jesus would tell us to use our cranium and figure it out.
The objection that we don't want to kill an innocent person is legit, but we take great strides in our judicial system to not let that happen. I think the judicial system takes enough precautions for me to be at ease.
Government
I chose to stress personal responsibility rather than government intrusion. Rather than purely wealth redistribution to bring up the poor, I'd say do this little and encourage personal responsibility. There will always be poor, and as a society we should recognize that we can't raise all the poor out of poverty. I'm amazed how the lib answer is so often to throw money at a problem without having any specific plan - it's often "we need to fund this more so it will work better" without having any good ideas. Money is supposed to spurn good ideas (i.e. health care, minority rights, helping the poor, science - global warming, education, etc). I'd rather the ideas came first.
I look forward to other people's comments - politics is an area where I try to revise my ideas frequently.
6 comments:
Nath,
I think it would be difficult to make the case as a biblical Christian that you don’t bear any responsibility for your “brother’s healthcare.” That is to say, from the beginning of the history of the church the people within it saw themselves precisely responsible for their brother’s everything. One historian wrote that in the early church the people held everything in common except their wives.
Other than teaching hospitals you probably can’t name on one hand the number of medical institutions in the US, or probably around the world, that weren’t started by, or supported by in a shirt-tail way, an organization related to faith… and particularly Christianity. In many countries around the world dominated by other religions the health care is pitiful, but one thing that almost always comes into play when the church enters a region is healthcare.
I would say, though I haven’t studied this, that there are two likely reasons for this: 1) If you can bring healing to the body the soul is going to be open. 2) The church has throughout the centuries valued the whole person, not just their spiritual welfare, but all the rest as well. To be sure, however, it would be difficult to see capitalism in the early church... though Paul was a tent-maker so that he could support his own ministry… and there is certainly industry - building one’s personal wealth over and against taking care of the faith community didn’t seem to be a goal. Partly… like was on the edge and no one really thought they’d live that long so it was a different time. But also I think they didn’t see this world as the place to put our store or treasures.
Having said all that, I agree that public healthcare isn’t the answer. I just drove by a “private surgery hospital” here in Vancouver BC… I suspect because the public surgery centers have a line out the door and it’s difficult to get good care. I don’t see any great public healthcare systems that I’d like to model a US system around either, but healthcare is a quagmire in this country. It’s the best in the world to be sure, and I appreciate it, but you’d better either have 1) a company paying your healthcare (which will cost them more than $1,000 per month… that’s not a great plan take it from me) 2) enough personal wealth that you don’t need insurance or 3) be so impoverished that your healthcare is free. My employer has provided my insurance for a number of years, for which I am grateful, but this year the premium went up so high (I broke into the 45 years of age bracket and into a state of decrepincy) that I didn’t feel right about them paying nearly $1200 per month for a plan that doesn’t cover vision or dental.
The reason that every politician is saying something about it is because it’s such a big issue. It’s more complicated, in my view, than “can’t afford it, tough!” One important distinction between the church and a public system is that in the church they weren’t required to pay for others anything… they chose to as being part of a community caring for each other. It wasn’t mandated.
This is a difficult issue Nath… to be sure… but it may be naïve to say… “Can’t afford it? I can’t help it… go be warmed and be filled.” There isn’t much in our culture that has the potential of created social classes the way healthcare does… there are other things, but not much. I for one don’t think that’s too healthy, and particularly not as a NT Christian.
This is a tough issue. You raise a good point that as a Christian I am responsible for my brother's healthcare. I was putting on my taxpayer hat in saying that healthcare isn't a right and thus not my responsibility. It seems to me there's a difference in where my Christian responsibilities and my taxpayer responsibilities apply.
I think my taxpayer hat is appropriate here rather than Christian. It seems weird to say that because of Christian charity I want somebody else to pay for the poor's healthcare (it won't be my money since I am also poor). As an individual (or the church) charity goes farther than as a taxpayer since as a taxpayer my decisions have much broader implications. As a taxpayer I must consider spending other people's money and society's good.
I love that Christians are charitable and that Christians take on the responsibility of other's healthcare. But I don't think this responsibility should be thrust on government.
As a taxpayer, I do think that we must say to some, "Can't afford it? Tough." because of our form of government and the limits to government's charity. I don't think there's a viable healthcare plan to cover everyone; I think this is an area where the ideal isn't practical (like communism). I hope as an individual/the church, I/we wouldn't say that and that private charities (like me) would help those people.
To be honest universal healthcare actually scares me. I can see A Brave New World in which we must choose who to treat because we don't have the resources to treat everyone. I'm afraid that as a society we'll have to choose which lives are most valuable and who's worth helping. I don't want that responsibility.
Having said all that, I don't know of a good answer to the healthcare issue/desire. But again, instead of throwing money at healthcare hoping it will help, I would rather the ideas came first. I did love Huckabee's emphasis on prevention and healthy living before getting sick, but I don't know how that would work.
Couldn't agree more Nath... just thought I'd poke at your "brother's keeper reference"... which I think is an important issue.
I agree that government healthcare is a quagmire or irreconcilable problems. I don't know if any politicians really believe it can be solved by a government run system... but it sounds really good to say on the campaign trail.
The reason that Christianity has started so many hospitals and healthcare institutions is that they really care about the sick and hurting, and they use their own money, that is to say, money that people have given for that purpose, to help the hurting, and so it works.
As Christians we ought to be deeply concerned about helping people because they are in the Imago Dei and worthy of help. It's good to heal the wounded... in whatever ways they are wounded, but you're right, in my view, the government can't do it.
You were right to point out the "brother's keeper" reference, I should have been clearer.
I wonder what politicians really think about how the healthcare issue can be "solved." It sure seems like there is a lot of "politicking" on the issue. Someday it would be fun to actually talk to a politician about it, perhaps when they are no longer a politician.
I honestly don't think you'd get a straight answer Nath. Call me cynical - I know I am.
I have been saying for months, it doesn't matter what Obama says right now... whoever is President is not going to "pull the troops out any faster than anyone else." They just can't but it sounds really good to some people to say you're going to pull the troops out.
Now, lately, Obama is unwilling to be nailed down about when he'd bring them home.
I think a law should be passed that required any politician going back on a specific campaign promise to be removed from office in seven days. I only say seven because it takes a few days to move out of government housing.
With all it's warts and flaws we must still have the best government system in civilization.
Well, John, you're a pastor so I guess you can't really let everyone know what you actually think. I expect this.
It is interesting how especially Obama is trying to appeal toward the center these days, especially about removing troops. He says it's the same as he's always said, but not sure people really buy it.
I think it's weird that candidates always make so many promises before they are elected. I guess that helps get elected but some of your opinions are bound to change after you see the info presidents see.
I agree, I love our governmental system, although I would love the live q&a and such that the Brits and Canadians do. Those are great to watch. And sometimes I wish we had more than 2 parties, but really I do like our system.
Post a Comment