Reform & Revive » Explaining Health Care Reform & “Christian” Reflections Thereof

Reforming minds. Reviving hearts.

Arts

Faith & Spirituality

Politics

Reviews

Society

Home » Church & Ministry, Politics, Society

Explaining Health Care Reform & “Christian” Reflections Thereof

Submitted by paulburkhart on Thursday, 27 August 20096 Comments

Can the common man understand this health care debate? Is there a particularly Christian perspective on health care? Also, a curious and unexpected memorial to Ted Kennedy. Read on.

by Paul Burkhart

_______________

Below is a series of illustrations by Dan Roam and Dr. Tony Jones of Digital Roam explaining the current Health Care system and proposed reforms to that system. This is by far the best explanation I’ve seen. So much so, it is forcing me to break a bunch of my own rules concerning this site and perhaps even give some new freedoms for what I post up here. Take a few moments and look through this series of slides and familiarize yourself with these ideas. Analysis will follow below. A couple of things before you start: I have no idea why this guy calls these “napkins” nor do I know why he says there are only four. Don’t let that distract you too much. The quality is such that I am more than willing to forgive these minor lapses of clarity.

_______________

View more documents from Dan Roam.

_______________

Okay, everyone up to speed now? So are there any uniquely Christian thoughts on this? First, of immediate concern for those Christians whose consciences are so inclined to view abortion as a fundamentally political and legislative issue (no sarcasm in that statement, by the way; it’s a totally valid way that the Holy Spirit moves in many believers); in Obama’s most recent weekly address, as he “debunks” various ideas being spread about the reform, he says: “Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.” So apparently (at least from what the carefully phrased political talk) it would seem that these sets of reform do not concern abortion.

So with the one health issue it seems Christians have anything to say something about out of the way (yeah, there was some sarcasm in that one), what else does the Christian have to engage with in this debate? Well, before we get quite there, two foundational things that have plagued my thinking about this:

First, I believe it is the clear testimony of the New Testament as to what the ideal would be. If the government just scrapped all of its social policies and health care aspirations and came up to Christians and said, “okay, from the floor up we want you to form the health care system you think is right”, then (in a Biblically ideal world) these Christians would make a completely privatized system driven by the free market – no medicare, medicaid, welfare, or “public option”. Instead, the Church would take responsibility for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the like. Christians, through local churches, would give of their time, their money, and themselves to see to it that all those that lacked would be cared for. They would do this out the overflow of their hearts because they had been so changed by the Gospel of a God who came to us while we were sick and poor and gave of His time, His resources, and indeed, His very life, that we would be made well. This would be the health care of the Kingdom of God.

But, as Mr. Of-Hippo (a.k.a. “Augustine“) helped us understand, Christians are members of the City of God, but they dwell in the City of Man. And this brings me to the second plaguing thought of mine: where the Church fails in its duty and calling as the City of God, is it the right of the City of Man (the government) to step up and pick up the slack? I don’t know. Part of me says the Church needs to see how bad things can get with neither them nor the government helping before they’ll actually take action. Another part of me feels compassionless and insensitive at that thought. But, for whatever it’s worth, most people I respect seem to have the former sentiment rather than the latter.

But nevertheless, the Church has not been given this opportunity to make a system from scratch. We have an existing framework we must work from. And I think we can. When (not if) you went through the above slides, do you remember when they talked about the existing system, and the three plans that are on the table? The existing system was referred to as “Restrictive Private Insurance”. The three plans Congress is currently debating include the “Less Restrictive Private Insurance” plan where everything stays private, but insurance companies are forced to lighten their limitations on coverage; “Private/Public Plan” where there is a non-profit public option that competes with the private companies (non-profit? That’s not much of competition, if you ask me); and a third plan with Private Insurers existing alongside Private “Co-Ops” or “Exchanges”.

It’s this third plan I think most reflects the Biblical picture of health care that can be employed using the existing political structures. In it, people in particular groups (by neighborhood, city, state, region, etc.) pay into one giant pool, and whenever someone in that group gets sick, they are able to utilize the group’s collective pool of money. Whether or not you ever use it is not the point, you are freely sacrificing your resources for the benefit of the whole.

I really like this choice, and like I said, I think it represents the heart of a Christian way of functioning in this City of Man. Heck, it’s the way that local churches are supposed to function in the first place. That’s what the “offering” time is for. It is everyone freely pooling their money together to benefit others – both within the congregation and without – whether or not they ever actually need the help themselves.

In a curious final development. I was shocked and surprised when I looked back at the slides above to find out the names of the various plans on the table. I saw that this “Co-Op” option was not supported by Republicans, the ones usually assumed (incorrectly, I believe) to hold the most “Christian” views in politics. Rather, this was actually one of the plans supported by none other than the now-late Senator Ted Kennedy. I didn’t see that one coming.

So here’s to you, Ted. Though I have strongly and bitterly disagreed with you on most issues my entire life, bravo for shocking me and showing me the narrow-mindedness of my assumptions. I hope this particular plan is pushed through.

Remember: give me feedback and comment on the blog. I need to know where I’m off on this if I am. Where I’m not off, I hope this helps.

Random Posts:

6 Comments »

tim adhikari said:

The paragraph that begins, “First, I believe it is the clear testimony…” is gold, pure gold. We, as the church, should proceed and progress from this reference point. In other words, a baby-step approach that launches from the reference points of options provided by legislation is a recipe for inefficiency. The Church must work under the Biblical mandate and be on mission with regards to the provision of healthcare and other social justice-related realms. The complement/supplement to that mission should never be a govt-augmentation. Rather, the current should flow towards increasing privatization. Why? Throughout history, two elements have led to the best mix of quality and price: competition and freedom of choice. Any govt. “solution” eliminates both of these. So, look across the landscape of govt endeavors — residential subsidies (FNMA, FHLMC), organized labor, transporation (AMTRAK, any govt. car company ever!), education (dept of education, SLMA), finance/banking reform (GLASS-STEAGALL, FDIC), market regulation (SEC). Also, look @ the nations that have gone the way of the govt solutions (CUBA, USSR, N. KOREA, much of Europe, especially Eastern Europe), and what you will find is an exposition of the failing logic (how something works) and failing legacy (how it has worked) of attempts at govt. responses to social issues, including healthcare.

So, Christians involved in mission related to healthcare — as well as education/literacy, poverty, etc. — must work towards a missional, serving ministry that augments itself with a move towards privatization and mkt principles. These endeavors have rarely, if ever, been tried.

- 27 August 2009 at 4:34 pm

Chris said:

I’m quite sure there do exist some insurance pools like this; I know I’ve heard them specifically marketed on Christian radio… looking around online I believe it was medi-share… I’d agree on that thought. Still wouldn’t mind if they looked at implementing reform on both medical and insurer sides too though.

- 27 August 2009 at 5:01 pm

“Explaining Health Care Reform & “Christian” Reflections Thereof” >> Reform & Revive « the long way home said:

[...] } Hey everyone, I have a new article up on the site Reform & Revive. It’s on the current health care debate (and a little note [...]

- 28 August 2009 at 12:41 am

Whit W. said:

I like the third plan too…in theory. Unfortunately, most policy wonks agree that it would be a colossal failure and have pointed out that where that kind of system has been instituted, it has been entirely ineffective at accompling its indended end of reducing cost and increasing access. Then again, I don’t have any hard figures myself to show you that. I like the public option plan myself. Just my 2 cents.

- 28 August 2009 at 3:53 am

Andrew Vogel said:

Hey Paul,

The slides were well done and helpful in clarifying the current issues. I do have some problems with your analysis though.

1) I don’t think the clear testimony of the NT is in the church taking care of all the sick and poor as you indicated. The government clearly has been tasked as well with similar moral responsibilities (as seen in Romans 13, and also throughout the Old Testament as God deals with Israel and foreign nations). It seems there is flexibility there, and the church should be supporting whatever solution aids the ‘poor and widows’ the best. Because of the scope of America, the mechanics of this seem to indicate the government (with the pool of taxes to draw from), is much better equipped to care for the ‘poor and widows’ – which effectively is a pleasing sacrifice to God – than the church ever will be. Remember that those who should be cared for are also non-Christians.

2) The examples of pools that I have seen before have the huge problem that they never cover catastrophic events. Suppose you develop cancer – they won’t cover it beyond certain costs. That still leaves you high and dry without hope. By having they limited geographically as well, they would create huge fluctuations within the school and housing markets because now not only do areas grow and diminish based on crime and school – but if you wish to care for your kids you will avoid their health care pool as well.

My own analysis:
Either of the three proposals are better than our current proposal. What lacks in this presentation are the methods used by Canada and the rest of the universal health care world in how they deal with these problems. We’re left looking at a situation that seems impossibly bleak – but is it?

At the very least, we do need less restrictive health care. It may drive up costs, but it could very well increase competition at the same time, and it will start to care for those who need help the most (pre-existing conditions, or people losing jobs during health crisis’). As a Christian our task should not be drawing lines between plans speaking of the evils of this or that. We should be grateful that the USA wants to help those in need and encourage it despite the method that is accomplished. There are extremely intelligent people working through these issues and Christians should be the ones complaining least about it.

- 28 August 2009 at 12:24 pm

tim adhikari said:

I’d like to address two points from Andrew Vogel’s post:

1.) “the mechanics of this seem to indicate the government (with the pool of taxes to draw from), is much better equipped to care for the ‘poor and widows”
- Assuming that you’ve done some time series analysis here, what you’ll find is that from the standpoint of a.) logic and b.) legacy, the govt. is NOT better equipped to care for the poor. The logic of the central planning model gives no weight to personal incentives/disincentives and thwarts the concepts of competition and choice. The legacy is that institutions that have attempted multi-generational central planning have woefully seen their standards of healthcare diminish markedly. Thus, the logic is that “it doesn’t work,” so it’s legacy has been that “it hasn’t worked.” This segues into a 2nd point from your post.

2.) “What lacks in this presentation are the methods used by Canada and the rest of the universal health care world in how they deal with these problems”
- Can you please explain why numerous businesses on the US-Canada border offer incentives for their employees to cross the border [into the US] in order to seek out an alternative to the Canadian system. Whenever a subsidy is introduced into the mkt for a good/service, the size of that subsidy induces artificial demand, which inevitably reduces the efficiency of the product/service by distorting the input/output, cost/price relationship. What it eventually does is drive artificial demand so high that it eventually causes higher prices than the original environment ever would have. Quality suffers. Affordability suffers. Europe, China, Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, etc. are but the tip of the iceberg of those nations that tried to alleviate social concerns through central planning. China and India have thrived economically for the better part of this decade and it appears to be highly proportional to the opening up of a mkt system in both nations. They are far from where they need to be, but markedly improved from where they were. Wealth creation, employment expansion, environmental standards have actually been inversely proportional to central planning. When the US has attempted central planning and mixed economies, similar results have been birthed. It actually keeps the poor poorer for longer.

- 28 August 2009 at 2:17 pm