CLARK COLEMAN WRITES AT VFR:

The philosophical argument that I have been waiting for someone to make (not just politicians, but conservative bloggers and radio hosts) is that a government takeover of health care will kill the unique spirit of America. Instead of freedom reigning in the hearts of Americans, they will look to government for solutions. Instead of controlling their own destinies, they will adopt the European mindset of thinking “the government needs to do something” about every problem. When you are an empowered, informed consumer of healthcare, ….  you have an independent spirit. You can change insurance companies or hospitals or doctors when you have a problem. When your only recourse is to write your congressman and seek his “constituent services” to deal with your bureaucratic impasse, you become a passive Euro-wimp. It affects your whole approach to life.

For the last 12 months, who has been saying that in public?

Jane writes:

I have found that this is true even among Christians, who are admonished by Jesus to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” In the wake of this unfolding health care debacle, I have corresponded with Canadian Christian friends who frankly, don’t get our system and don’t understand what all the fuss is about. 

When I try to explain that this is not in keeping with the American spirit, I am scolded for not wanting to part with my money to help those less fortunate. To present a different angle, I wondered what would happen if those of us who are Christ followers in America, who are abundantly blessed, would pool our resources and talents to help our fellow bothers and sisters in the faith meet their needs rather than begging Caesar, and I am met with “The job is too big. We could never do it.” 

Your commenter is absolutely correct. Socialism affects our character. Even among the most conservative, among those who profess faith in the Almighty, All Powerful Creator of the universe, there seems to be a resignation to the “reality” that we need government to do something for us in order to make it.

Laura writes:

Compulsory charity is not charity. Socialism changes the heart and grossly interferes with the expression of love and generosity.

Many Christian critics of the bill, such as the Catholic bishops, focused exclusively on the abortion issue and failed to point out the other ways in which the bill is immoral.

Lydia Sherman writes:

Socialism affects the personality. Years after England went under, missionaries and others who visited the nation reported that the people were reduced to petty gossip regarding their neighbors, watching the progress of others and getting caught up in comparisons to see if everything is fair. A once great nation did not even know its own history nor could people quote any of their great poets or name their inspired artists of the 19th century.

Look at the wording in every news report you get, from the weather to finances: financial experts blame the lack of production, the president blames Congress for not coming to an agreement, inclement weather is blamed on the cold temperatures coming from the north. Birds get the blame for this season’s flue, and high prices at the grocery store are blamed on the cost of fuel. Kids blame their parents for any angst they have, and schools blame the parents for poor results in their children. Blame is one characteristic of a socialist nation. Envy is another. In a world where everyone is supposed to be equal, people naturally start monitoring everyone to see that they don’t get any more prosperous than they do. 

Another quality of socialism is pessimism. People develop a “you-can’t-do-that” attitude, instead of a can-do attitude. 

Just look at the message boards on the web of students today and you will see this smallism everywhere: Life sucks, life isnt fair, something is to blame, and somebody better pay for it.

Sheila C. writes:

Lydia Sherman mentions how most college kids’ attitude is that “Life sucks” or “Life is unfair.” This is the perennial attitude of the statist, well encapsulated in the title of one of Thomas Sowell’s many excellent books, The Quest for Cosmic Justice. Even I, who was not raised as a Christian, never had the attitude that I was owed anything, least of all that mythical “fair share” that so many now insist on. This entitlement mentality pervades our society, from welfare-dependent blacks who expect free money from “Obama’s stash,” to college kids who demand taxpayer-subsidized tuition and have no idea that all government monies consist of confiscatory taxes from productive citizens, to retirees who insist Social Security is not an entitlement (“just let me get my fair share, it’s my money, they owe me”). Instead of anyone caring about the “common weal,” we now have those ceaseless busybodies envisioned by C.S. Lewis, whose “conscience” or sense of utopian social justice compel them to endlessly torment their fellow men. This is an outgrowth of the collective mindset; the sense that the behavior of an individual reflects not on him, but on the family or group (Chinese sense of face, Muslim sense of honor, and so forth) and so rigidly enforces social mores which stifle individual expression and enterprise. This attitude undergirdsprograms that represent an enormous percentage of our economy and our body politic, which is why all the Internet sound and fury of the last few days (wait until November; we’ll repeal it, etc.) have me enraged at people’s folly. So many claim to be opposed to confiscatory taxes or compulsory programs or compulsory charity, until their own personal ox is gored (farmers and crop subsidies, students withtuition subsidies, retirees with social security and endless cost of living increases, ad nauseam). There no longer exists in this country a majority of people who are determined to make it on their own and are chary of government assistance and too proud to accept charity except in the most dire of circumstances. Too many would condemn Paul (Those who do not work will not eat) as a right-wing hater and the antithesis of their fabled “God of love.”

Jane’s comment about Canadian Christian friends not understanding what all the fuss is about reminded me of my experiences with British friends back in the early 80s. I was then only beginning my political and social awakening from my liberal upbringing, and I passionately hated Richard Nixon (my dislike has outlasted my conversion). My flatmates and other British college friends couldn’t understand why certain of Nixon’s actions (enemies list, using government agencies to harass political opponents, and so forth) were unconstitutional and questioned why the Constitution itself mattered – a piece of paper, as they termed it – as opposed to simply doing something that worked. Again we revisit the end justifying the means, today even more passionately asserted by ever more people who are terribly concerned with my personal welfare. One of the most damning consequences of decades of cultural relativism and Marxism throughout our educational establishment is that almost no one truly understands the origins of our nation and the political thought of our Founding Fathers. I read Patrick Henry, and I am struck by his passion; he was not debating theoretical systems or philosophical differences, he was speaking of his life and the future of his children. Those who claim reverence for our nation’s political origins still view such thoughts and speech as relics of the past, not lasting sentiments that should inspire their own existence. To use the vernacular, there’s almost no one with any real “skin in the game” when it comes to genuine liberty and personal freedom. Freedom is now license and rights are free of responsibilities, and our national character is no longer exceptional at all. We are a degraded people in a degraded nation, and while I have hope of eternal life in God and endless trust in His grace and justice, I have no hope in men and today, no real hope for the future of this country. We reap what we have sown, and it is all evil.

Alan writes:

Socialism is a form of slavery in which we treat others as means to our own ends rather than ends in themselves. Christianity uses the persuasive power of the Holy Spirit to achieve change. Pseudo-Christianity uses force and the power of the gun, albeit a well hidden gun. Unfortunately, many if not most Christians think that the ends justify the means – and forced slavery of a group to serve another is fine.

Another more insidious issue with the focus on fairness is substituting one’s own judgement about what is fair for God’s. It is a plain fact that God distributes gifts unequally among us and that results in unequal ability to accomplish certain things in the world. These so-called Christians are actually rebelling against God’s creative judgement in saying that gifts of birth are unfair and must be balanced out by man’s action and judgement. However, their thinking as to what constitutes fairness is usually in a specific direction. Think about fairness in professional sports – NFL Football teams that are representative of the age, ethnic, physical, cultural, and mental diversity of the United States. Would anyone watch such a league? The question answers itself.

Laura writes:

I would add one more thing to these inner changes, implied in all that is said above. That is, a loss of the capacity for reflection. Socialism occupies the mind with paperwork, trivia and the minor crises of bureaucratic bungling. It distracts, and destroys the ability to transcend absorbing banalities. This goes along with the loss of initiative Clark mentioned and the busybodyness Lydia and Sheila described. Socialism exhausts the soul with pettiness.

Amelia B. writes:

Thank you for discussing this! I am currently studying for a semester in Europe, and in my “Law” general education class, I have gotten into numerous debates with my professor over the differences in rights between Europe and America. My professor has literally instructed our class (all American study-abroad students) that there are certain things a person deserves merely by being born: education, health care, welfare, social security, etc, at least in the European system. When I defend the concept of a traditional American right (something that no one can take away from you- life, liberty, free speech), my professor acknowledges my comments as representing the American point of view, but in general ignores them. Also, specifically on the topic of health care, my host mother has questioned me, “but how can you be Catholic and not think that everyone should have health care?”

The answer of course is found here in your discussion. Of course as a Christian I want everyone to have basic health care. Of course my family feels a Christian call to support the poor and organizations (including hospitals) that serve them. But I do not think that opposing government-run health care makes me unChristian. I think that it makes me sensitive to human nature, and to the damage that a welfare state inflicts upon the character of its residents: it makes them lazy, and relieves them of the responsibility of caring for their neighbors. Citizens in a welfare state are encouraged to be lazy because there is a minimum level to which they can fall- they can be assured of health care at the very least, a nice social security check, and sometimes even housing. Why work? Even the entrepreneurs are incentivized to take it easy: if opening another business will make you $100,000, but you’ll lose 75% of that in taxes, what’s the point? Citizens in a welfare state are not responsible for the care of their neighbors for an obvious reason: that’s the government’s job! That’s the reason that we pay those high socialist taxes, remember? So that lazy Mr. Jones can sit at home all day and collect on all of the nice government programs arranged for him.

In case you aren’t convinced that this is the case, I offer an anecdote. Last year I spent my spring break working with Habitat for Humanity. One of the students in our group was for Germany. At the end of the week, he remarked how the entire concept- people volunteering their free time to help others, people donating money and supplies to a complete stranger- was completely foreign to him. Moreover, he concluded that Habitat for Humanity would never work in Germany. Why not? Because the government takes care of the poor people, so German citizens don’t have to.

Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic organization that helps people in a tough spot more effectively and more efficiently than a government program ever could. The volunteers who run it can take pride in strengthening their communities. The recipients can take pride in their work, since they themselves must put a certain number of work hours into the houses of other people before they can receive a house of their own. How many governmental housing projects can claim these successes?

A final anecdote, for those who question the intrinsic laziness of human nature. Look at any college campus- a vast number of students are skipping class, throwing and attending bacchanalian parties, wasting their parents’ money, and destroying school property. What is the fastest way to make these students gain some responsibility? Put them in charge of their own finances. You will be hard-pressed to find a college student who is paying his own bills who is eager to be reckless with his time and hard-earned money. The same is true with any resource. Private ownership, and responsibility for one’s own life, are key elements in developing a responsible, mature character. This holds true in every aspect- receiving something from the government is never as healthy as earning it yourself.

Clem writes:

Shelia C wrote: “I read Patrick Henry, and I am struck by his passion; he was not debating theoretical systems or philosophical differences, he was speaking of his life and the future of his children.” Exactly, he was speaking not just ideas but to and about real flesh & blood, as in “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Our posterity. Looking at pictures of the Founding Fathers I’m pretty sure Juan and Tequanda are not who they had in mind. Flesh & blood…Just as Christ in the flesh is not mere symbolism. Socialism affects our character by attempting to pull us away from flesh & blood.

Charles writes:

Jane wrote: “To present a different angle, I wondered what would happen if those of us who are Christ followers in America, who are abundantly blessed, would pool our resources and talents to help our fellow bothers and sisters in the faith meet their needs rather than begging Caesar, and I am met with “The job is too big. We could never do it.”

This is being done. There are at least two Christian organizations that are doing this in the US; and the organizations are set up by and for Christians in order to meet medical expenses. Take a look at http://medi-share.org/Default.aspx. We have been members for over 10 years now.

Brittany writes:

I don’t really know about nationalized healthcare but I can see why some people want it. It’s not just lazy people who refuse to work that don’t have healthcarethere are people with jobs that cannot afford healthcare. For the majority of people they want healthcare because they don’t want people to die due to their lack of health insurance.

Laura writes:

There will be many more hard luck stories with nationalized medicine, which will create economic stagnation, the loss of jobs and an overall downturn in the quality of medical care. Last week, 130 economists signed a letter to Obama stating the health bill would cause economic decline. 

The poor do receive assistance through Medicare, which is essentially bankrupt. Health insurance premiums have risen as a result. Turning the medical industry over to the government is not the only way to help those who find premiums onerous. It is not the duty of government to remove all financial hardship. Nevertheless, there are ways of making care more affordable while keeping control in the hands of individuals, such as a system of vouchers or Health Savings Accounts. Tort reform and the expansion of consumer insurance markets across state lines would also help. The health reform bill entails $569.2 billion in new taxes, more than 150 new bureaucracies and regulations, and 17,000 new IRS agents. These costs will be borne by us all.

Mabel LeBeau writes:

I daresay that I find the statement by Clark Coleman false and essentially smug: “when you are an empowered, informed consumer of healthcare, ….you have an independent spirit. You can change insurance companies or hospitals or doctors when you have a problem.”

The county where I live has a large tax revenue base as it boasts colleges and manufacturing, as well as white-collar work. But in the counties where I work, there is not a lot of wealth, and while there is not abject poverty, people do have to try to hold onto to their factory jobs to ensure access to healthcare benefits. In these cornfields from where our boys are the first called-up to serve in foreign lands, I really don’t see evidence of independent spiirit other than a person’s choice of whether to purchase a Chevy or Ford van on a 36 month plan.

Lydia Sherman writes:

The poor also have free clinics, dotted all over the U.S., where medical professionals donate their time. We have used these clinics several times and although they do supply a bill to those who can pay, you are free to work out a manageable payment plan. Our health care system was not broken. Our hospital waiting rooms are not crowded with people refused treatment without insurance. Insurance programs vary in cost, so that the poorest people can afford some kind of insurance. The powers that be had to spread the belief that our health care system could not take care of itself, so the government had to do it. It simply is not true.

Rita writes:

Jane wrote:

I wondered what would happen if those of us who are Christ followers in America, who are abundantly blessed, would pool our resources and talents to help our fellow bothers and sisters in the faith meet their needs rather than begging Caesar.

This is already works well in Amish Communities. If you haven’t heard, they may be exempted from the new health care plan due to their religious convictions about it.

Shhhh… I’m trying to figure out how to work that angle because I truly do have grave religious problems with being part of such a corrupt system. Maybe we should start our own religion :)

Clark Coleman writes:

I would perhaps give a thoughtful response to Mabel LeBeau if her statement were coherent. She complains about my lauding of people who have an independent spirit because they are empowered, informed consumers of medical care. In her neck of the woods, she finds no one with such an independent spirit. This is hardly surprising, as it seems that no one in her neck of the woods is an empowered, informed consumer of medical care. So, what is her point?

Perhaps her misunderstanding of my position arises from the fact that she was not part of the context of the discussion at View from the Right. My point is that there are almost no empowered, informed consumers of health care at the moment, because everyone has (1) employer-provided, non-portable insurance, and (2) low deductibles, so they don’t care much about the price of medical care, because “my insurance pays for it.”

Mabel responds:

What is the point of lauding an independent spirit empowered to choose a different healthcare provider, if there’s really no connection between independence of spirit and choices in healthcare?  It did seem self-serving to tout benefits of the independent spirit as a political choice i.e. democracy vs. socialism, using as a basis those well-informed choices in knowing how to ‘work’ the healthcare system. I work as a clinical pharmacist and have quite a bit of knowledge about treatment options, but find access to resources stymied. It is quite true that a majority of problem of efficient use of resources has to do with the disconnected disenfranchisement of workers from a ’employer-provided, non-portable insurance’ but the issue encompasses much, much more frustration than attempting to jump this initial hurdle. 

My area of expertise is pharmacy. Although my residency was in a VA hospital, I have worked in several major city hospitals, specialty hospitals, a regional hospital for more than 15 years, and now in several small county hospitals. Occasionally, I pick up a shift or two at your neighborhood Wal-mart or other community drugstore. 

Until a patient’s insurance plan (and, there are oodles of different ones), then the prescription information is entered into the pharmacy database, there is absolutely NO way ahead of time practically that any consumer knows how much they’re going to have to pay for their medication (unless the pharmacy sets the standard price ahead of time, so that insurance is NOT billed–but, then, the pharmacist equation for reimbursement and how to pay for the lights is all out of whack, plus there are issues with giant corporations purchasing drugs in bulk to ‘fix’ drug prices for the other shops–‘monopolies’). 

That issue of not knowing or being able to ‘shop around’ alone bespeaks to the hoodlumism of health insurance companies. 

As another example, I was helping one of my fellow parishioners choose the particular health insurance plan that would be covered by Medicare D in anticipation of orthopedic surgery and convalescence in the next year. Not knowing which drugs a future insurance company choice would cover prevented us from an informed choice, and I even knew what therapy to expect post-op for a person with rheumatoid arthritis recovering from a total knee replacement. 

In another example, I was working at a small mental hospital. Many medications used in psychiatry are newer name-brand only, super-expensive, and their use advocated above older generic agents because of more favorable side-effect profiles. Yet, folks with schizophrenia are often diagnosed at a younger age, have little or no social security benefits or work-related benefits due to inability of individuals to interact appropriately in society to hold a steady job. 

A psychiatrist called me from the next town to see what I would recommend for a particular patient known to me who could not afford to pay extra anything for prescription drugs, just to get treatment underway, then apply for drug company programs afterwards. I called the patient’s insurance program to find out how much they would cover. I, as the physician’s representative, was refused this information. It is rather disemboweling to realize that even the prescriber, in attempting to make a therapeutic choice which the patient might be able to afford, is prevented from knowing the cost ahead of time by someone employed by an accountant. 

So, my expressed irritation at smugness, is with that someone who is well-informed about choices being free to choose among providers is either someone who is an insider in the health insurance industry or so healthy, with no illness, not prone to accident, and no reason to use the insurance that they pay dearly (or that their employer doesn’t pay them directly in a salary because insurance is part of a group plan), because even prescribers and pharmacists cannot predict how much a patient will pay for only one segment of healthcare–the prescription drugs. 

Laura writes:

I think what Mabel is saying is that “independence of spirit” doesn’t mean much when the average consumer is overwhelmed by the options and his own lack of expertise. He is struggling with the complexity of modern medicine. Even if consumers were not all distanced from their choices because of employer plans, they would face dizzying options. What is the missing link here? The physician who guides the consumer. The independence of spirit Clark refers to seems to be this option to choose a physician who is not hounded by regulations and for the consumer to have a financial stake in the process. HMOs and managed care remove the consumer from the consequences of his choices. It is far better to have plans which involve the consumer financially in his decisions, such as Health Savings Accounts. With freedom, there is risk.

Please follow and like us: