Comments on: Is There a “Christian” Position on US Health Care? http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357 Living close enough to the edge to matter... Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:41:31 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dave Muller http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357/comment-page-1#comment-89055 Dave Muller Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:21:33 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=357#comment-89055 Good article, Chris. I agree 100% that the state should not be the provider. In Australia we have a socialised health system and it is terrible. It is full of bureaucrats rather than doctors and billions of dollars never fix it. When it was run privately and by churches, it was cheap and care was good. Good article, Chris. I agree 100% that the state should not be the provider. In Australia we have a socialised health system and it is terrible. It is full of bureaucrats rather than doctors and billions of dollars never fix it. When it was run privately and by churches, it was cheap and care was good.

]]> By: Chris L. http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357/comment-page-1#comment-87135 Chris L. Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:12:27 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=357#comment-87135 Matt, The church used to operate a number of hospitals, particularly for that purpose. As for solutions to the current problems, I'm working on an article this weekend... Matt,

The church used to operate a number of hospitals, particularly for that purpose.

As for solutions to the current problems, I’m working on an article this weekend…

]]> By: Matt http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357/comment-page-1#comment-87055 Matt Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:54:05 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=357#comment-87055 I don't think I agree that healthcare is just an issue of "provision for the poor" or an issue mercy/grace and kindness. I brought up widows and orphans because I think those are situations where individuals and the church can make meaningful progress often without appealing to additional parties. Healthcare, by contrast, requires access to people and equipment that is prohibitively expensive if the risk of using it isn't spread out across a large pool of people, most of whom hopefully won't need it much. Unless you are suggesting that the church should "step up" and start opening more public/low cost medical centers, I don't see how the church could deal with this. As things stand now, individuals are trying to deal with it along with their employers, but costs are becoming prohibitive even for those who aren't "poor" (though I guess it depends on your definition of "poor"). I don't think that government intervention is the only possible way to fix this problem, but I guess I don't see it as a huge problem by itself. Sure, always looking to the government for a fix, bailout, or solution is a problem, and that's what you suggest in the post. But I would say that we (America) are reluctant to get government involved in healthcare for all Americans (it already is for the elderly, disabled, poor, and veterans). Otherwise we would have gone down this path gladly long ago, or it would be passing through Congress much easier than it is now. At a high level, I think taking a "status quo" or purely "don't do X" stance in the current healthcare debate is unlikely to be really useful. The current system is generally agreed to have problems that need to be fixed. Along those lines, I would like to hear what you think a good solution would be. :) I don’t think I agree that healthcare is just an issue of “provision for the poor” or an issue mercy/grace and kindness. I brought up widows and orphans because I think those are situations where individuals and the church can make meaningful progress often without appealing to additional parties. Healthcare, by contrast, requires access to people and equipment that is prohibitively expensive if the risk of using it isn’t spread out across a large pool of people, most of whom hopefully won’t need it much. Unless you are suggesting that the church should “step up” and start opening more public/low cost medical centers, I don’t see how the church could deal with this. As things stand now, individuals are trying to deal with it along with their employers, but costs are becoming prohibitive even for those who aren’t “poor” (though I guess it depends on your definition of “poor”).

I don’t think that government intervention is the only possible way to fix this problem, but I guess I don’t see it as a huge problem by itself. Sure, always looking to the government for a fix, bailout, or solution is a problem, and that’s what you suggest in the post. But I would say that we (America) are reluctant to get government involved in healthcare for all Americans (it already is for the elderly, disabled, poor, and veterans). Otherwise we would have gone down this path gladly long ago, or it would be passing through Congress much easier than it is now.

At a high level, I think taking a “status quo” or purely “don’t do X” stance in the current healthcare debate is unlikely to be really useful. The current system is generally agreed to have problems that need to be fixed. Along those lines, I would like to hear what you think a good solution would be. :)

]]> By: Chris L. http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357/comment-page-1#comment-86801 Chris L. Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:01:07 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=357#comment-86801 Matt - a number of good points there. Just a few comments right now and hopefully more later (though it would have been easier if you'd have asked me last week up in MI City ;) ) 1) I'm not sure I've considered goods from the framework you provided, though it seems to make sense. In this article, I'm just looking at 'goods' from the standpoint of what mandate is given to government in the OT and NT vs. what mandate is given to the Church vs. what mandate is given to individuals. Provision for one's family (children, parents, etc.) is given to the individual primarily, with the church as a backstop for acute needs. Provision of justice, order and defense is given to the king and/or the state, with no individual backstop mentioned (though allowed in absence of government). Provision of guidance to elder family, with church overseers (elders) as a back stop. Provision for the poor, the widow and the stranger to the Church first, and then the individual. 2) In your model, I do see a good deal of health care as a "private good", with the probable exception of emergency care. It is something that is beyond the Biblical outlay of the purpose of government - it is not an issue of defense. It is not an issue of civil order. It is not an issue of justice. Rather, it is an issue of mercy/grace (which belongs to the Church) and kindness (which belongs to individuals). 3) I do see that we've already given up much of what we are to focus on (orphans, widows, etc.) to the state - particularly over the past 100 years. I don't know that Social Security necessarily falls into this (if viewed as a savings plan it was intended to be, rather than a guaranteed "right", since it is dependent upon what you paid into the system), or foster care (since it is individual volunteers, many from the Church, who provide the care, with the state setting regulation (civil order) on it and organizing it (which the church did previously in church-run orphanages)). I do think we're often too quick to look at the gov't as the solution, though, when we should be looking at ourselves, instead. Matt – a number of good points there.

Just a few comments right now and hopefully more later (though it would have been easier if you’d have asked me last week up in MI City ;) )

1) I’m not sure I’ve considered goods from the framework you provided, though it seems to make sense. In this article, I’m just looking at ‘goods’ from the standpoint of what mandate is given to government in the OT and NT vs. what mandate is given to the Church vs. what mandate is given to individuals.

Provision for one’s family (children, parents, etc.) is given to the individual primarily, with the church as a backstop for acute needs.

Provision of justice, order and defense is given to the king and/or the state, with no individual backstop mentioned (though allowed in absence of government).

Provision of guidance to elder family, with church overseers (elders) as a back stop.

Provision for the poor, the widow and the stranger to the Church first, and then the individual.

2) In your model, I do see a good deal of health care as a “private good”, with the probable exception of emergency care. It is something that is beyond the Biblical outlay of the purpose of government – it is not an issue of defense. It is not an issue of civil order. It is not an issue of justice. Rather, it is an issue of mercy/grace (which belongs to the Church) and kindness (which belongs to individuals).

3) I do see that we’ve already given up much of what we are to focus on (orphans, widows, etc.) to the state – particularly over the past 100 years. I don’t know that Social Security necessarily falls into this (if viewed as a savings plan it was intended to be, rather than a guaranteed “right”, since it is dependent upon what you paid into the system), or foster care (since it is individual volunteers, many from the Church, who provide the care, with the state setting regulation (civil order) on it and organizing it (which the church did previously in church-run orphanages)). I do think we’re often too quick to look at the gov’t as the solution, though, when we should be looking at ourselves, instead.

]]> By: Matt http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/archives/357/comment-page-1#comment-86784 Matt Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:58:14 +0000 http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=357#comment-86784 How would the government providing healthcare for more Americans differ that much from the government providing other social services (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, foster care, public education, etc.)? You seem to agree that government is clearly the best provider of non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods (i.e., <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good" rel="nofollow">public goods</a>), or at least you agree for the specific case of national defense. Depending on the laws, regulations, and policies involved, healthcare is either a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good" rel="nofollow">private good</a> (e.g., many pharmaceuticals) or a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)" rel="nofollow">common good</a>. If you see healthcare as something that should be a "private good" than a "common good", then government involvement may come across as more of a "socialist approach." If you see healthcare as something that should be a "common good", then government involvement may come across as more of a "good stewardship approach." I think this is another way of seeing the difference between healthcare as a "right" vs. a "privilege" or "commodity". Personally, I think healthcare more naturally fits other along side services in the "private goods" category (e.g., haircuts), but I understand why that view is troubling from a social policy standpoint. Even if you throw out the economics view, I would think that if you are concerned about the government taking the place of the church, it would be better to focus on areas of clear direction in the Bible (e.g., taking care of widows [Social Security] and orphans [foster care]) than areas that are not addressed as directly (e.g., medical care). Do you think it would be more Biblical to phase out programs like Social Security and foster care? If not, why are they different than healthcare? How would the government providing healthcare for more Americans differ that much from the government providing other social services (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, foster care, public education, etc.)? You seem to agree that government is clearly the best provider of non-rivalrous, non-excludable goods (i.e., public goods), or at least you agree for the specific case of national defense. Depending on the laws, regulations, and policies involved, healthcare is either a private good (e.g., many pharmaceuticals) or a common good. If you see healthcare as something that should be a “private good” than a “common good”, then government involvement may come across as more of a “socialist approach.” If you see healthcare as something that should be a “common good”, then government involvement may come across as more of a “good stewardship approach.” I think this is another way of seeing the difference between healthcare as a “right” vs. a “privilege” or “commodity”. Personally, I think healthcare more naturally fits other along side services in the “private goods” category (e.g., haircuts), but I understand why that view is troubling from a social policy standpoint.

Even if you throw out the economics view, I would think that if you are concerned about the government taking the place of the church, it would be better to focus on areas of clear direction in the Bible (e.g., taking care of widows [Social Security] and orphans [foster care]) than areas that are not addressed as directly (e.g., medical care). Do you think it would be more Biblical to phase out programs like Social Security and foster care? If not, why are they different than healthcare?

]]>