The "megaphone" of this blog is very small (~30-40 hits a day) but I have tried and want to continue to be a responsible voice in the debate over the new health care bill.
For those who have problems with the new health bill, let's present calm and reasoned concerns and viable alternatives.
There is NO PLACE for violence and I denounce those few who have gone down that path.
For those who are supporters of the health bill, look honestly at some of the problem areas and do not lump all opponents of the bill into the lunatic fringe.
I came across this item which offers some reasonable concerns over this bill. Excerpts:
Christians rejoice when every single person receives healing. We are a religion that founds hospitals and is commanded to do charitable work.
........
The job of providing health care, this basic human right, is not the job of the state, but of the family and the church.
........
Most American families are able to give their members some of the best health care in the world and are glad when the government modestly steps in to help those in need.
Conservatives are not all libertarians. We recognize that some government help may be necessary, but also know that at some point help becomes a hindrance. Health care is not the only good thing in a society. There are also the values of the soul: liberty and happiness. It is the American and Christian idea that too much government can stifle the soul of a man.
The tipping point between necessary, though regrettable, help from the state to help families and churches do their duty may have been reached. Conservative Christians do not want to see families, communities, and churches turn to the state to meet their needs.
We do not want the state providing us for an excuse for our moral failure to do our duty. We do not want to avoid private charity with Scrooge’s excuse that the state taxes us to do the job already.
........
Promising to do something you cannot afford is not good. We are making promises to people, but there is no evidence from other government programs, such as Social Security, that this promise can be sustained.
Is it right to mortgage the future of our grandchildren to buy health care for our children?
Thanks John Mark Reynolds for the passionate and thoughtful critique of the new health bill and hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for pointing out Reynold's essay.
16 comments:
I find the article quoted lack of breadth and full of wishful reasoning.
"The job of providing health care, this basic human right, is not the job of the state, but of ... and the church."
How about the non-Christians? Will the church promise to take care of all the uninsured, Christians and non-Christians alike?
"Giving more power to the central government harms human liberty"
...versus giving more power to the church? Anybody who knows European History knows what harm the church can do.
The health care reform is about solving a national problem and not about power grabbing.
"Giving more power to the central government harms human life... this new law will have the government pay to kill innocent human life."
It has been a trend since the health care debate started that conservatives consistently use lies to further their arguments. I would have expected more from a Christian leader but I guess I was wrong...
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/21/obama-executive-order-on-abortion-funding/
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2010.html
(Look for executive order 13535)
Thanks for dropping by ... though I have to say some of anonymous' comments would appear to fall into the harsh voices in this debate ...
Hospitals founded by Christian groups care for the people who come into them without a "membership check."
I would bet that JMR would challenge Christians to be much more generous in giving to help meet the needs of the poor by donating to local medical clinics in their communities and for Christian doctors to give more time to such efforts.
JMR did not and would not advocate consolidating power to churches and so that point about European history is a non-sequitur by anonymous.
And finally, regarding the Executive Order regarding abortion ... it remains to be seen whether it will be challenged by pro-abortion groups in court. I would guess if a court views the executive order as contradicting legislation, then it would be struck down. Also, executive orders can be rescinded at any time.
The heart of JMR's article, in my opinion, is here:
"The government has long helped the vast number of religious institutions that provide health care. The Catholic Church by herself provides subsidized health care to millions of citizens and is glad to get some help in doing the job. Most American families are able to give their members some of the best health care in the world and are glad when the government modestly steps in to help those in need.
Conservatives are not all libertarians. We recognize that some government help may be necessary, but also know that at some point help becomes a hindrance."
Ran a quick google search "abortion executive order valid" yielded this item from a pro-life Catholic group...
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6210.html
I'm not an attorney so I don't know if the item accurately describes the state of the law regarding the new health bill. But it does seem to suggest that the EO's effect might be a bit more limited than advertised.
I also like a reasonable debate but it is hard when the opponents of health care spread more lies than truth. It is even harder when the Tea Party steps in and protests with Pictures of our President that look like Hitler. It is even harder when factions of the Tea Party and some leaders like Sara Palin suggest using violence and then lie and say they are not or are just kidding. I am not laughing. I am just waiting for the Tea Party to show there real identity and are wearing white sheets on their heads.
Thanks for dropping by.
There are extremists on BOTH sides!
However, to dismiss one side on the basis of that 0.1% that is extreme is not to debate the substance of the issues but to engage in what I think is called a version of ad hominem.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
Comments are welcome at this site even critical ones.
As a blogger with an opinion, I have to accept the criticisms, fair and unfair, that comes with this small piece of turf on the Internet.
I will continue to try my best to present reasoned discussions of the issues of the day and resist the temptation of shrill screaming style punditry.
I have to say it is challenging when some readers believe that being an opponent of the President's policies means your side consists of liars, belong to the KKK and advocate violence.
I wonder how many of the visitors to this blog looking for political discussion are on the political left, right and center? How many are interested in a thoughtful conversation? How many want to engage in "flame wars?" How many leave thinking that calm political debate is actually possible? How many conclude it is a lost cause?
I suppose one part of the problem in political debates these days is that one side can't accept that the other side might have honorable objections.
As for me and this blog, I will keep trying my best to present reasoned discussions of the issues of the day.
You said:
"Hospitals founded by Christian groups care for the people who come into them without a "membership check."
I would bet that JMR would challenge Christians to be much more generous in giving to help meet the needs of the poor by donating to local medical clinics in their communities and for Christian doctors to give more time to such efforts."
JMR said health care is a job for one's family and his/her church. That is why I asked the first question. There are a lot of non-Christians in this country and they don't have a church to go to ask for donation when they are sick.
Also, if the church, and Christians by their donations as you have suggested, want to be the provider of health care, can they commit to and be accountable for it for the 45 million uninsured, and the individuals who got rejected insurance because of pre-existing conditions if not anything else? That was why I raised the second question.
Obviously, national health care is not a task that just well-intentioned Christians can take on by themselves. Why wouldn't it have been done when so many had been uninsured for so long?
Can you see how that argument is full of wishful thinking?
You said:
"JMR did not and would not advocate consolidating power to churches and so that point about European history is a non-sequitur by anonymous."
Did JMR actually say that in the article or was it your conjecture?
JMR said:
"Giving more power to the central government harms human liberty. A physically healthy man who is not free and able to flourish as a man is not in an enviable state. I would not trade my liberty for comfort or care. As hard as it is to say, I would not trade my children’s liberty for government health care."
JMR equated letting the government take care of health care to giving more power to it, or even worst, as something that will trade one's children's liberty for. When he is using extreme language like that, I feel justified to use the same logic against his argument.
I think the conservatives sometimes forgot why this democracy was established. When forming this country, the founding fathers recognized the need of a central authority but did not cede this power to any monarch, church or general but to a democratically elected government. If health care is an issue of power, why would you entrust it to the church and not the government?
You said:
"And finally, regarding the Executive Order regarding abortion ... it remains to be seen whether it will be challenged by pro-abortion groups in court..."
It is one thing to say the health care bill might unintentionally pay for abortion. It is another to say it is a wholesale funding of abortion. JMR knows what reaction he will be getting from a certain segment of the population and he is manipulating them. That is no different from the "Death Panel" argument raised by Sarah Palin.
JMR said:
"Lives saved by government spending on health care will be balanced by lives lost by government spending on abortion. "
"I do not support this liberty and life destroying law."
This is not a case where we have to agree to disagree. It is more like we have to both agree to what the reality is. Let me know if any of my arguments is not reasoned and why they are so.
Feel free to write to John Mark Reynolds at
john.reynolds@biola.edu
I can only interpret what he wrote at face value. If one wishes to make the worst interpretation of what he said, one is free to do so.
Item #1
It seemed to me that his view is as follows ...
Health care should be taken care of in this order:
1) by the individual
2) by the individual with the help of family
3) by the individual with the help of some combination of friends, church, religious group or other community based affinity group of a non-religious nature
4) with the help of the government
In this article he said: "Most American families are able to give their members some of the best health care in the world and are glad when the government modestly steps in to help those in need."
Thus, he, like most critics of the new bill, acknowledge there is a role for government in this arena.
JMR cites, "I commend the work of Congressman Paul Ryan in this regard."
There was a spectrum of ideas being discussed by politicians and think tanks; some called for more and some less of a role for the Federal government.
Could/should the church do more? Yes.
Can it do it all by itself? No.
Does the government have a role? Yes.
Were there plans with a smaller government footprint? Yes.
Item #2
I stand by the remark:
"JMR did not and would not advocate consolidating power to churches and so that point about European history is a non-sequitur by anonymous."
Your query:
Did JMR actually say that in the article or was it your conjecture?
JMR was explicitly concerned about consolidating power to the government. To suggest he is advocating consolidating power to the church would be to impose an interpretation upon a matter not even under discussion in his piece.
Item #3
Your comments:
JMR equated letting the government take care of health care to giving more power to it, or even worst, as something that will trade one's children's liberty for. When he is using extreme language like that, I feel justified to use the same logic against his argument.
I think the conservatives sometimes forgot why this democracy was established. When forming this country, the founding fathers recognized the need of a central authority but did not cede this power to any monarch, church or general but to a democratically elected government. If health care is an issue of power, why would you entrust it to the church and not the government?
In regards to children losing their liberty, he is making the point that a significant part of the cost of both old and new government sponsored benefits (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and new health bill) will be carried by future generations having to pay off the National Debt.
JMR said, "Promising to do something you cannot afford is not good. We are making promises to people, but there is no evidence from other government programs, such as Social Security, that this promise can be sustained."
These programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and new health bill) have good intentions but they consolidate power to Washington DC and if one doesn't mind consolidating power to Washington DC rather leaving it in the hands of individuals, families and entities closer to home then one might mind that these programs are run badly and are going broke and will have to be paid for by future generations through the National Debt.
Item #4
You say: It is one thing to say the health care bill might unintentionally pay for abortion. It is another to say it is a wholesale funding of abortion. JMR knows what reaction he will be getting from a certain segment of the population and he is manipulating them. That is no different from the "Death Panel" argument raised by Sarah Palin.
For those who support abortion, it is objectionable that there is any restrictions (however limited the EO's restrictions are) on government funding of abortions.
For those who oppose abortion, calling it "unintentional" (when it isn't) doesn't make it any better.
Item #5
Your comment:This is not a case where we have to agree to disagree. It is more like we have to both agree to what the reality is. Let me know if any of my arguments is not reasoned and why they are so.
I think one problem here is that supporters of the new health bill mischaracterize the objections that critics raise and choose to attack the integrity of those who oppose the plan.
John Mark here. Like any blogger, it is nice to get a link, though less pleasant when people don't like what you write. Just to say: Rene has read my ideas correctly. I would never support a theocracy, believe government has some role in health care, and am concerned (like the majority of Americans) that this new law gives the government too great a role.
Is that an extreme view?
I hope not!
You said:
"For those who support abortion, it is objectionable that there is any restrictions (however limited the EO's restrictions are) on government funding of abortions.
For those who oppose abortion, calling it "unintentional" (when it isn't) doesn't make it any better."
I retract the word "unintentional" and replace it with "speculative". It is your speculation that says the bill will pay for abortion if (1) it is successfully challenged by pro-abortion groups or (2)the executive order is struck down by court or (3)the order is rescinded by the President himself.
The bill itself did not say anything about funding abortion and to claim otherwise as JMR have is not right.
I am not opposed to the language restricting abortion in the bill but I am totally against any misrepresentation of it of the "Death Panel" sort.
You said:
"1) by the individual
2) by the individual with the help of family
3) by the individual with the help of some combination of friends, church, religious group or other community based affinity group of a non-religious nature
4) with the help of the government"
Points taken. But do you think people who are uninsured now are not doing these? To them, the only thing missing is item 4 before the health care bill got passed!
Be reminded of these prices when you talk about the above. There are actually amounts that my friends were charged after a stay in the hospital:
- Delivery and 1 week intensive care for a Pre-matured baby: > $100,000
- A few days in the hospital for a non-life-threatening complication from a previous stroke: > $60,000
You need a wealthy family, lots of really good friends and a very supportive affinity group to pool together that kind of money...
There will be more time and space on this blog devoted to health care policy and politics, but for now, I'll leave that to the future and simply respond on a human level.
Thank you for sharing your two friends stories and I hope that they did receive care for their medical conditions and are working out a way to cover the resultant financial costs.
I realize health and financial matters are highly personal and one may not feel comfortable going into any more detail on an open forum like a blog. But to the extent you and your friends want to share more, please do, this blog space is available for that.
As a Jesus follower who wants to take seriously the call to love your neighbor (cyberspace neighbors count!), if your friends are taking contributions, please feel free to email me pertinent information to rrblog_@_yahoo.com and I'd like to give what I can to help out.
I thank you on behalf of my friends for your generous offers. However, in listing the prices I did not mean to generate sympathy but rather to show the seriousness of our health care crisis. The medical situation I mentioned are by no means uncommon. They could happen to anyone and the bill could ruin the finances of a lot of families.
My friends were the more fortunate ones. One of them have really good insurance from work and the other one has a wealthy family member who paid the bill.
Sigh...the sad state of health care in this country...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/26/cheaper.surgery/index.html?hpt=C1
Post a Comment