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.

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.

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.