Too often Christians, and this is just a general statement rather than directed at Bird or the commentators of course, understand the truth presented in the Gospel and think that we need to proclaim how the world ought to act. I can't really argue with this. The world ought to take care of those that are sick, no matter the cost. But here is where many forget the crucial starting point of the Christian message: the world can't. Our salvation is based in grace, and we too often try to emphasize what will be the ideal to the detriment of what we should be doing in the present.
The post in question is on the American health-care debate. (I find it ironic that he begins with "Now I'm not one to get involved in the US health-care debate..." and then frankly does with some rather stark comments.) I'll post his comments below and try to add my own comments as well.
"1. Every western democracy from Norway to New Zealand has universal health care for its citizens except for the wealthiest nation on earth.
"2. Putting profit-driven companies in charge of health care sounds like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. You need more than market forces to keep greed in check, if you don't believe me, go apply for a loan at Lehman Brothers.
"3. I've lived in two countries with universal health-care and it works great (not faultless by any strech, but it works).
"4. Australia has both a public and private system and the two can and do co-exist in peaceful harmony, i.e., there is a safety net for the masses and those who want breast implants and ankle reconstructions on demand can have it. My two daughters were born in private hospitals, but I've also made use of the public system for the most part.
"5. To oppose access to affordable health care strikes me as a violation of the golden rule.
"6. I can understand the desire not to put government in charge of everything, to encourage a free market economy, to create profit-motive, to foster upward economic mobility, and avoid becoming a welfare state - I'm on board - but you can still have all that with more government involvement in health care.
"7. Does anyone know of any theological reflections on health care?
"2. Putting profit-driven companies in charge of health care sounds like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. You need more than market forces to keep greed in check, if you don't believe me, go apply for a loan at Lehman Brothers.
"3. I've lived in two countries with universal health-care and it works great (not faultless by any strech, but it works).
"4. Australia has both a public and private system and the two can and do co-exist in peaceful harmony, i.e., there is a safety net for the masses and those who want breast implants and ankle reconstructions on demand can have it. My two daughters were born in private hospitals, but I've also made use of the public system for the most part.
"5. To oppose access to affordable health care strikes me as a violation of the golden rule.
"6. I can understand the desire not to put government in charge of everything, to encourage a free market economy, to create profit-motive, to foster upward economic mobility, and avoid becoming a welfare state - I'm on board - but you can still have all that with more government involvement in health care.
"7. Does anyone know of any theological reflections on health care?
My comments:
1. One of the largest misconceptions in this debate, especially made by foreigners, is that America does not universal health-care coverage. We already do. The current debate really centers on how we plan on paying for that coverage. You break a leg, you will get patched up in the ER and sent on your way. You have the flu, you will get medication from the ER and sent on your way. You will be billed later of course, but you do get coverage. It is wrong to make this a point of morality by claiming that people are not getting care when they are. Even Obama knows that this real debate covers the disastrous effects that can happen when you can't pay for health-care bills.
2. It seems to me that Bird is correct. Companies by themselves need to be regulated. BUT WHY? His solution is that they are greedy and therefore bad. I resent this assessment because it is over-simplistic (we are greedy and looking out for ourselves, which is why the welfare system creates state dependents instead of encouraging people to get off state payrolls). He might want to pick up a copy of Adam Smith before the next installment of Wright, since supply and demand (which works off one's greed) is still the basis for economics. Is greed a bad thing: yes. Have we not proved that it can be controlled through anti-trust and transparency measures: again, yes.
The insurance companies should be regulated so that people can be intelligent about their investments. To this extent I suggest passing legislation so that the public has access to true costs and market analysis of the company, and a yearly audit of those companies that hold so much public importance. Bird holds up Lehman Bros as the counter-example, yet under this practical solution Lehman Bros would not have gone belly up by cooking the books as they were shown to do.
We conservatives agree with Obama that reform needs to happen (we just wish he'd be serious about it). We have acknowledged that people who are not allowed coverage because pre-existing conditions is wrong, and that a one-page bill could rectify this. We also realize that if you expect to more costly procedures because of your pre-existing condition, you should be willing to pay more yourself. As well, dropping coverage or promise of care by insurance companies is wrong, and another one-page bill could take care of this. We all agree rationed care is wrong.
3. I've also lived in a country with a single-payer system. Does everyone get the care they need when they need it? No. And seeing as America's standards of care are by FAR higher than the rest of the world's, perhaps one should not just idealize their own system without more critique. America does far better than any other country for providing higher standards of living for end of life diseases such as cancer. We may not live longer, but we live better and easier. As someone who just recently lost a relative to cancer, perhaps we ought to be comparing the conditions people in which people die instead of other measurements of "success."
4. Cosmetic surgery (e.g., breast implants) should not covered by insurance, by anyone, anywhere. Reconstructive surgery is different of course, but Bird should not lump the two together without so much a thought of apples and oranges. As well, this tiered system should of care should make us all question those who propagate it, especially in American where we emphasize the equality of all (whether we practice it or not). Perhaps those with private care ought just be given a title as well to differentiate them from the commoners (or as Bird calls them, "the masses"). I'm pretty sure theologically we all are under the same condition in this world, and to me America was the first country to realize this and set forth a type of government that would protect the masses who had not from those few who do have. Such a tiered health system is sick, both politically and theologically in my mind.
5. To me this is a lot of rhetoric which looking back I would hope Bird regrets saying. Too often Christians are willing to use the state for their own goals, when we ought to remember that all the glory is God's (not the state's). If we want to see true change on this planet while carrying out God's will, then we must be God's agents, and not agent's of the state. As Christians are we called to implement any means to an end? I don't think so. I think our prayer is that it is God's will on earth, not the self-salvation message of the Progressive agenda.
6. This is a pretty narrow viewpoint I think. Who is Michael Bird to say that we should just ignore the criticisms, and just insist that health-care is TOO important to exist outside the free-market system. Would it not be better to have it properly regulated rather than controlled? Can we not have a free-market health-care system?
The all untold fact is that regulation exists now in America that prevents insurance companies from offering what they and the consumer want. What if catastrophic was available at much less, with al-a-carte items elsewhere? What if insurance was separated from one's work altogether, allowing one to get exactly what they want/need and the true cost of healthcare?
7. I've already some theological reflections, but here's the biggest one. Did Jesus come to set up rules/regulations/good options for a secular political system to implement, or did he come to proclaim the kingdom of God as it was breaking in on earth? I'm actually offended by any politician, especially Obama, who sees the US government as a means to achieve a goal which was meant to be achieved by individual followers of Christ. Are we called to be set apart from the world, or be "corrupters" of the world's agenda to see our goals accomplished?
It is hard to be a good Christian and politician at times. The good Christian is called to be the Good Samaritan, picking up the beaten up man and paying everything for his recovery. The good politician must protect the interests of both the beaten man and the Samaritan. The beaten man needs individual attention, and the Samaritan needs to make an individual moral choice. The government that steps in takes away both these options: the beaten man is patched up, but not for the best of individualized care, and the Samaritan does not need to make the moral choice to give his own money for the care of the man since he has already given some already.
I will say one further thing, more on a side note than a direct argument. The liberal/progressive agenda is to make sure everyone has basic needs covered. The conservative agenda is to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity for life, so that they might achieve what they wish good or bad. (In the comments, Mark Goodacre notes that we enjoy "free" public education, at least "free at the point of use." This definition of "free" however is wrong, as just because we do not require a payment at the start of the school year does not mean it is not being paid for. The payment comes out as part of our taxes, even those people who do not use it. But even we conservatives agree that this is proper, because while it might not be free in any sense, it is morally right to allow children an opportunity to become any profession they wish to pursue. But this is a different moral question of equality than the moral question of caring for one's neighbor.)
We do care about people, but we allow people to make mistakes. We see the parable of the good Samaritan, and others, as calling out to the nation to step up and give more because it is morally good. But we do not read that Jesus then dragged the expert in the law away to both collect money to give and minister to the poor. This is why I enjoy Wright's book, The Challenge of Jesus. Jesus' message is a challenge to consider, not a requirement on all to partake in unwillingly. It is a challenge to individuals, not to political governments or even to organized churches (which can only call their citizens/individuals to accept this challenge of Jesus).
For all the respect in the world that I have for Bird, Goodacre, and the others that are in favor of some sort of universal health-care mandate on account of Christian morality, my only conclusion on this topic is that they are too narrow-focused right now on a goal being met instead of the consequences of skipping a few vital steps. As well to try to frame this question in terms of being a good Christian and agreeing with him, as Bird has done, seems antithetical to everything else he has written. I conclude with where I began, that sometimes Biblical scholars should not get involved in controversial political debates so easily.
Posts
