Health Insurance?

[thrombomodulin]

On the first question it seems inconsistent to answer "no", and also approve of the act being done. If god has not authorized one man to administer anothers health, how can he do so without commiting a sin? you have justified the position by saying that most canadians approve of it. Does this justification apply universally? For example, suppose that tommorrow I start a private business where I provide health care for a fee. Ninety percent of the people of lake county indiana buy my services without compulsion. I would like to grow my business another ten percent. Is it or is it not and act of wrongdoing for me, a private business owner, to compel the remaining unwilling men to purchase my product?

You said you knew of no one who disagreed with the system, so the approval rate must be very high. If public opinion, however, shifts so fewer people approve of the system then at what point, if any, does it become an act of wrongdoing for caesar to continue to impose it? I am wondering if, in the extreme case where all subjects disapprove of the system and the ruler imposes it anyway, you see this as a ruler acting within the realm of authority he has been given by God (albiet imprudently) or if he has sinned because he is acting outside the jurisdiction God has given to him (like naboths vineyard).
m,

[Paidion]

On the first question it seems inconsistent to answer "no", and also approve of the act being done.

The "first question" to which you refer seems to be:

Are you affirming that God has granted Caesar the authority to administer the health care of his subjects?

I see no inconsistency in believing that governments belong to the kingdoms of this world, and yet may make decisions which benefit the people under their jurisdiction. Where such decison benefit the people, I support them.

If god has not authorized one man to administer anothers health, how can he do so without commiting a sin?

Every day, millions of people, who do not know God in any sense, perform beneficial acts. For example, there are many good parents who do what they can for the benefit of their children. Some people sacrifically give their lives to save the life of another. People volunteer to help their communities, etc. Who can say what God does or does not authorize among non-Christians? I cannot see any of these helpful acts as "sin".

You have justified the position by saying that most canadians approve of it. Does this justification apply universally?

No. I did not justify my position. I merely pointed out that a large majority of Canadians are happy and satisfied with socialized health services. When people are faced with health problems which they could never afford to have treated if not for health services which are "free" to them personally, they naturally choose the "free" health services. (Quotes around "free" to indicate that those who benefit from socialized health services personally pay nothing for these services, but that taxpayers in general pay for them)

For example, suppose that tommorrow I start a private business where I provide health care for a fee. Ninety percent of the people of lake county indiana buy my services without compulsion. I would like to grow my business another ten percent. Is it or is it not and act of wrongdoing for me, a private business owner, to compel the remaining unwilling men to purchase my product?

As a private business owner, you have neither the right nor the power to "compel" the people of Lake County to buy service from you. The Government, on the other hand is not a private business. It is a public administration elected by the people.

You said you knew of no one who disagreed with the system, so the approval rate must be very high. If public opinion, however, shifts so fewer people approve of the system then at what point, if any, does it become an act of wrongdoing for caesar to continue to impose it?

As long as the people want the system, it NEVER becomes an act of wrongdoing. If the majority disapprove of the system, they will elect a government which allow people to opt out of the system. I cannot see this happening, because if they opt out, their taxes will not be reduced (although the small amount designated for health care, in my case $300 annually might be deductible), and they will receive no health benefits unless they buy into a private system.

I am wondering if, in the extreme case where all subjects disapprove of the system and the ruler imposes it anyway, you see this as a ruler acting within the realm of authority he has been given by God (albiet imprudently) or if he has sinned because he is acting outside the jurisdiction God has given to him (like naboths vineyard).

I don't think "the ruler" in this case would long be in office. Canada is a democratic country.

[schoel]

As long as the people want the system, it NEVER becomes an act of wrongdoing. If the majority disapprove of the system, they will elect a government which allow people to opt out of the system. I cannot see this happening, because if they opt out, their taxes will not be reduced (although the small amount designated for health care, in my case $300 annually might be deductible), and they will receive no health benefits unless they buy into a private system.

???

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
- James Bovard

This statement begs the question of whether it is moral to force any person to pay for someone else. It is my conclusion that using the government to coerce others to pay for something I want or need is antithetical to the Christian faith and should be rejected by the followers of Jesus.

Even if the majority/minority split was 1 billion to 1, it is still immoral.

A majority vote does not make evil good.

[Paidion]

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
- James Bovard

I heard someone ascribe to Plato the saying: "Democracy is government of the cattle, for the cattle, by the cattle."

This statement begs the question of whether it is moral to force any person to pay for someone else.

Do you mean, "This statement leads to the question..."?
"Begging the question" refers to a logical argument is which the conclusion is used as one of the premises. See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... stion.html

If it is immoral to force anyone to pay for someone else, then your whole system of income tax is immoral. Do you oppose that as strongly as you oppose universal health care? No government is able to function without having the people as a whole pay for the service to others. Do you belong to the Libertarian Party? If you oppose government taxation and other practices which force all people to pay for public services, then that would seem to be the political Party for you.

It is my conclusion that using the government to coerce others to pay for something I want or need is antithetical to the Christian faith and should be rejected by the followers of Jesus.

That will not happen in the Kingdom of God. But as long as we still live in the world, and the Kingdom of God has not yet been fully established, it seems that Democracy is a superior system to Anarchy.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

The "mandatory" nature of the system in and of itself is sufficient to demonstrate that it is not beneficial for all individuals who would not have voluntarily participated anyway in the absence of the mandate. Recall the economic insight, you described trivial in another thread, that in voluntary exchange each participant values what he parts with more than what he recieves. It is evident that if compulsion is required to cause an individual to participate where he otherwise would not do so, that he is not being conferred a benefit, but rather a loss. Do you agree that the position you are advocating is the same as saying you favor government imposing losses on some of its citizens?

You mentioned the appropriateness of giving a benefit by way of three unfitting examples. Parents provide for their children out of their own means, people volunteer so as to give up their own time and labor, and a man gives his own life when he lays it down for another. In each example you describe someone voluntarily disposing of what belongs to himself. The case of government involvement would be more like children taking their parents property without their parents consent, or compelling men to work for others who do not wish to do so, or requiring another man to give his life rather than giving up your own.

The high opinion of democracy is one I used to share but now, I think, is unwarrented. In theory the idea sounds good in the way you describe, but it suffers from problems which arguably make it inferior to both anarchy and heireditary monarchy. An economic analysis of the costs and benefits to participation by citizens and ruler easily demonstrates that rulers will not proptect private property, but rather will expropriate those who have earn wealth to those who did not earn it. Businesses with special interest will accomplish "regulatory capture", and "rent seeking". Politicials are able to defy the will of their constitiants in particularly egregious cases (recall the highly oppossed TARP bank bailout in recent years in the usa). The idea that voting resolves these problems because of accountability does not hold up to scrutiny. In each election I have participated in canidates run on and are elected mainly by name recognition and not distinctives in political postitions. In any case only two politicans from the dominant parties have a reasonable chance of being elected so my choice is usually between one guy who is bad, and another who is even worse. The simple choice between these two is in no way capable of communicating my preferences on a multitude of issues to the powers that be. n

[robbyyoung]

Hello All and God Bless!

This is why, IMHO, I believe we must have the spiritual mindset of the truth behind what seems to be tempting us towards the cares of this world. Daniel 4:32 "and you will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling place will be with the beasts of the field. You will be given grass to eat like cattle, and seven periods of time will pass over you until you recognize that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes."

As Saints of God we are called to live and mature unto righteousness as God rules over the affairs of men. We should not contradict, but compliment visually and physically the Kingdom of God here on earth. We have a great cloud of witnesses that have shown us the way of righteous living, even to the point of physical death, prison, and torture. Unpleasant as it may seem, this is our calling if need be.

So if Cesar wants to tax us for whatever reason, we must decide how to respond righteously, knowing God rules over this decree and His Children should represent Him well to the praise of His glory and majesty. Once we become blinded to believe He is no longer ruling of the matter, we eventually find ourselves out of His will and His chastisement upon us.

God Bless!

[thrombomodulin]

Robby, could you be more specific about what you see as possibly deserving God's chastisement here? Of course, there is a valid topic of how christians should respond to the mandates of rulers. That is not what is being discussed here. This topic is an instance of how a ruler ought to behave. When citizens are asked to participate in governing, if only through voting, it seems appropriate to carefully consider what policies are worthy of our support or opposition. But even if we do not have such on account of living under forms of government which is neither democratic, republic,( or some types of communist) it still seems valid to pronounce what actions of caesar may be right or wrong. Consider the old testament prophets who rebu ked kings.

[robbyyoung]

Robby, could you be more specific about what you see as possibly deserving God's chastisement here? Of course, there is a valid topic of how christians should respond to the mandates of rulers. That is not what is being discussed here. This topic is an instance of how a ruler ought to behave. When citizens are asked to participate in governing, if only through voting, it seems appropriate to carefully consider what policies are worthy of our support or opposition. But even if we do not have such on account of living under forms of government which is neither democratic, republic,( or some types of communist) it still seems valid to pronounce what actions of caesar may be right or wrong. Consider the old testament prophets who rebu ked kings.

Hi Brother,

I'll be specific. If a ruler is or turns wicked towards the populous; God is still ruling over the affair. A Child of God will take the righteous road (Maturity) and God may or may not deliver you from the oppressor. There is no way around responding, as the world may respond, in unrighteousness. We, Children of God, are not spiritually inept. We are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Basically, if the unsaved wants to know what right looks like, we are the example.

So how a ruler ought to behave is God's business and we are to be about His business as He rules over the affairs of men. I truly believe our Father equips us beforehand and prepares us for suffering for righteousness sake. Our joy and hope does not reside in saving our own flesh, putting it before presenting our body as a living sacrifice. Many of our brothers and sisters have been called to endure some extreme situations, I believe God prepared them and comforted them to their glorious end, (the stoning of Stephen is a great example).

The only thing that matters is how we discern right or wrong regarding other people's actions. We can rebuke as well, but if our rebuke causes us persecution, so be it, we suffer for the cause of Christ. This is where our perseverance and faith is worth its weight in gold!

God Bless!

[Paidion]

Well Throm, if you would prefer to allow countless Americans to die or become disabled from diseases and/or health conditions which require surgery because they cannot pay for these services, rather than have a universal health care system supported by the people of the U.S.A, which "forces" the U.S citizens to contribute to this system, then it seems clear where your priority in this matter lies.

My wife and I rejoice as Canadian citizens and senior citizens that we can live our lives in relatively good health thanks to universal health care. If this provision were not available, I know I would likely be dead by now and my wife severely disabled. We are happy to contibute to the health system through the income tax system so that others may be helped even as we were helped.

By the way, no one has yet suggested why there seems to be no serious objections to the income tax system. You are all "forced" to pay your income tax in order to provide various services and carry out a substantial number of programs which benefit the public. Can you tell me how this differs in any significant way from the government taxing people to fund a universal health care system?

[thrombomodulin]

I have not yet encountered an economically compelling argument that government is superior to the private sector, profit seeking business in providing health care to those who, under present circumstances, are unable to afford as much of it as they wish. It is often said that christians as a whole lack enough wealth to make adequate provision for the poor and sick. This is true. It is also true, however, that human desire to obtain any economic good, including health care, is essentially unlimited. Who does not prefer to have more, or higher quality things and services than what already posseses? I would appeal to the "socialist calculation argument" advanced by ludwig von mises in the 1920's as one of the several reasons why I think the prices for medical care would be significantly lower in a truly free market for health care. If this is so, then a great many more people would be able to procure their own health care, and the "needs" of charity are diminished. Further, the nature of an economy is such that the various "factors of production" can be allocated in a multitude of ways. Since those factors are scarce (in the economic sense of the term) one sector of the economy expanding comes at the expense of another contracting. Who shall decide how much health care is to be provided vs. Any other good (e.g. Housing, cars, heating fuel, etc,.)? I would like to contend that a freely functioning market allows prices for goods and services to develop that alone allow men to most rationally allocate the means of production among the various ends that they aim at. A socialist system divorces the use of resources from expenses incurred and hence is poorly positioned to be able to assess whether or not such expenditures were prudent. In any case, even if the above economic reasoning is faulty, the argument you are advancing is of the type called "the ends justifies the means". I am not so inclined as to agree with type of reasoning. Instead it is my intention to abide by the laws and principles as best I can deduce them from scriptures. This is where my priority lies. I hope it is not an inappropriate place for a christian to place it.

I do not think the provision of health care differs substantially from most other goods and services provided by government except one. Since I oppose those other services on the same, or similar, grounds it does not present an inconsistency in my position. The administration of criminal justice is the one possible exception because it is the only object of spending and taxation that can be arguably granted by god / scripture (rom 13). I have doubts , however, about whether even this is a power granted by god to ceaser. If He has not, then an anarchocapitialist political position follows.

If, however, modern day rulers represent authorities god has appointed then other difficulties arise. I will raise these concerns later, perhaps on the thread darin started.