A common rationale for the health insurance mandate is that people who are not insured use a significant amount of Emergency Room resources and therefore cost the system an inordinate amount of money. By requiring everybody to either purchase qualifying health insurance or to pay a tax penalty, we offset the costs of their medical care and effectively make them pay for what they use.
An argument against the health insurance mandate is that the government of the United States has no business in the health care business.
But what about personal security? Law enforcement and civil protection are legitimate roles for government, both local, state, and federal. And people who are not trained in self-defense or who are unarmed are more likely to require substantial police presence at greater cost than people who are capable of handling their own protection and are armed appropriately for it.
The facts show that an armed populace results in lower crime rates. The level and amount of armament should have a direct effect on the levels of crime as the potential cost to the criminal rises with each additional law-abiding heat-packer.
Therefore, in order to share the costs of a legitimate responsibility of civil government among those who use it’s services, I support Representative Allen West’s (tongue in cheek) proposal that law-abiding and capable citizens be required to make rudimentary effort and take basic action to provide for their own defense. Well-defended individuals will utilize fewer of the scarce resources allotted to civil protection and law enforcement, and those who do not take such action ought to be subject to a tax to offset the increased cost to the government for their protection.
In responses to the previous article, comments were made that while Democrats are obviously not a good choice for support by Christians, the Republicans fare little better. Two friends in particular spoke to the fact they could not in good conscience support the Republicans any more than they could Democrats.
Professor Keith Drury, whose article I am commenting on here, finds much the same in a couple different issues in particular.
My own feelings on this are that I tend to stand with the Republicans because of what they say, to a large extent, and to a lesser extent because of what they do. And just as the rank and file Democrats may hold many of the same ideas as the Democrat leadership but for radically different (and possibly better) reasons or even may hold radically different opinions, evidenced by the fact that many Democrat successes in more mainstream areas of our country have been achieved by running to the right of the local Republican challenger, the rank and file Republicans tend to not agree with the master plan of the leadership of the party.
Regardless, ideologically conservative people who primarily inhabit the Republican party have been on the right side of the vast majority of issues for nearly 4 decades now, and with the principles written in the official platform of the Republican party of limited government, constitutionally defined freedoms, protections for all (including the unborn), and other points, I find it is necessary to support this side of the political spectrum.
Even better is the fact that the Tea Party movement has created a massive wave of pressure against the entrenched and now befuddled Republican leadership who have no more idea where this came from nor any more love for it’s outcome than the Democrats, because it is their party this groundswell is mostly affecting. Gone are the fat-cat lards of largesse, the caricatures of statesmen that have taken the name Republican and have been no better than common fleas (but that would unfair to fleas) once elected. Now it is the young and vibrant, the fresh and energized and ideological and impassioned people standing up and running for office and surmounting the odds.
Can you tell I’m excited?
Yes, the Democrats will likely experience extensive losses during the elections next month. But the winners will not be the old guard Republicans, they’re no more loved than the Dems.
Digressions aside, though, let’s resume the commentary.
Professor Drury’s next topic on which he finds himself more closely aligned with Democrats is healthcare.
His main argument? Doctors should not be getting rich healing the poor. Fair enough.
But what is the logic supporting a structure of punishment for those who do? And can we penalize all doctors for the greed of some?
No. A principle of basic human justice is that justice is never served if, while punishing the guilty, the innocent are willfully harmed.
Keith uses the evidence of Christ healing the sick constantly during his earthly life to show the value God places on caring for the health needs of people. This is all very well and good, but we are called to be wise, to be stewards. In human economic terms, this means efficient allocation of resources.
In fact, it is the money involved in the profession that attracts so many incredibly talented people into this field. And for every person who is in it for the money, there are likely others who are not. Look at all the free and cheap clinics that are sprouting up all over the place. Walgreens, then CVS, Walmart, and now even Target super stores have clinics where you can get standard preventative medicine for pennies on the dollar. And at the upper end of the health care system, all that money funds amazing research providing cures we’d have trouble distinguishing from dark magic even 10 years ago.
The health care issue is fraught with peril, incredibly complex, and nothing I can solve here in this column. Suffice it to say, the federal government taking over health care will no more solve the issue than federal government taking over primary education has created a system embodying quality and equality.
Professor Drury does not spend much time on this, except to note that while Republicans have talked the talk, they’ve not walked the walk.
The problem here is once again that it is not justice to harm the innocent.
Just as I cannot and should not under and law or logic known to God or man be held responsible for crimes committed by my Grandfather, so no man should or can be held responsible for a system they have not created or unjustly taken advantage of.
And yet, the prescription for the cure to the female condition is the unnatural hampering of males.
Would not a better solution be the removal of any and all barriers to equalize potential rather than outcome?
In so many social justice issues, the measure is always the outcome. Is the number of women making widgets equal to the number of men making widgets? Do they get paid the same? The problem is that there is no reasonable logical support for a system that guarantees equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee equality of outcome is to limit the potential of everybody until some unnecessary and destruct least common denominator is achieved. This is what the USSR tried and achieved. That is the socialist ideal. It’s the best you get when you look for real equality.
This is one reason why the American experiment has been such a rousing success. America, in it’s social and governmental systems never attempted to guarantee equality of outcome. Our founders recognized the moral folly of such an goal. Instead, there is equality of opportunity. All people are equal under the law. What one does with that inherent equality is their own. They can truly blame none but themselves if they fail to achieve all they could.
Bart Stupak sold his soul and the lives of countless innocent babies for not even a bowl of porridge but the promise of a liar.
I’m proud to report that my representative, Congressman Dan Lipinksi, a Democrat whose pro-life stance stood firm in the face of what was reportedly intense pressure from the party leadership to support this particular pet project of the President, voted against the health care takeover and unconstitutional government power grab because he didn’t trust the promises of San Fran Nan’ and President Hope’nChange.
The battle isn’t over. After all, the sell-outs and pols who passed this know it’s not the right thing or the best thing. Why else would they push the implementation off for years?
What they have accomplished is to paint massive targets on each and every one who voted Aye. Come election time fiscal conservatives will vote out those who levied hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt onto each and every one of us, our children, and our children’s children. And social conservatives will vote out those who signed on to the government sponsored slaughter of millions of innocents.
The Great American Genocide has only just begun, and the blood of millions of black and white, and hispanic and asian babies will cry from the dirt and garbage bins to the every listening ears of God.
Congressman Stupak, shame. Shame on you for selling your soul on the promise of a liar. Shame on you for selling out the countless babies who might have been born had it not been for your craven and cowardly act of supreme selfishness. Shame on you and your cronies who took a stand and abandoned it at the first hint of real trouble.
We, your electorate will indeed be coming for you come election time, but we’re not who you ought to fear. Fear a just and holy God who knows your heart and mind as well as we know your actions.
Samuel Adams penned these lines in response to those who would not stand and fight the necessary and good fights of his day:
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
A good friend of mine a few weeks ago said his main argument against it is the historical argument: what programs has the United States government run successfully in the past that can serve as a model for the successful management of the entire healthcare system of the US?
It’s a good question.
I get echoes of “Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…?” in my head just thinking about it.
United States Senator Tom Coburn thinks it’s a very relevant question to, as he uses it to correct a lady who is asking for his support of socialized medicine in the US.
UPDATE: Neil from 4Simpsons says the health care bill does contain funding for abortion. His logic is the same we use to find black holes. If you don’t find something you expected to find, there’s probably a good reason.
Honey, lately your low self-esteem is just good common sense