Iphilosophize the health-care bill

Before I dive in, a disclaimer: I am not trying to prove or disprove the health care bill is right or wrong, good or bad, and I am neither for nor against the bill as of yet. Please do not comment politics, to say that I am not an American or something similar. I will NOT take a side in this case, this is simply analyzing the bill NOT to advocate it in any way.

I will divide this post into three sections: 1. The good/positive parts, 2. The bad/negative parts., and 3. My speculations
1. The Good


For the government, it is assumed that they are trying their best to do what is good for the country. In order to take this to the fullest extent, one must concentrate on ALL of the in the country. The health care bill intends to lower prices of general health-care so it is more affordable for those that are less fortunate, as well as regulating health care companies’ limitations (such as screening for health problems or age) I looked at the official Government page for the health care bill, and read the summary. Of course this bill will lean in favor of the bill, I will try to extract the facts rather than the language. This is what I found…



“Non‐partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that it will provide coverage to 32 million more people, or more than 94% percent of Americans, while lowering health care costs over the long term. This historic legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years, with $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction in the following 10 years.”


So according to this, in short, this plan has the potential to give coverage to a substantial amount of people as well as possible reducing the deficit. Before I critique this, let’s look at this in a moral sense.


To give an example, a very basic example, let’s say that there are two people, one with an umbrella and one without. The one with the umbrella is rich and has the best umbrella money can buy; it is wind resistant, indestructible, etc. The one without the umbrella is shivering and wet, but she can’t afford a decent umbrella and the one she can afford the seller refuses to sell noting that she is already wet. At this point, you should be feeling badly for the wet one, you might say “what is wrong with that sales person? Why wont he sell the Umbrella?”. That’s exactly what some insurance companies are doing today. They are refusing to sell their protection to someone who is already sick. So what can be done to fix this umbrella problem? Lets say the government starts giving out free umbrellas, very basic umbrellas maybe with some small holes, but umbrellas none the less. Obviously, the one who is drenched by now takes it and the one who already has the nice umbrella refuses.

End of story? Not quite yet. Lets say since the free umbrella solution, the man with the deluxe umbrella has to give his up because the company he bought it from is going out of business, now he too has to take the standard, somewhat flawed umbrella.


To those of you reading that feel more like the rich umbrella guy “the one who has good health care” might be thinking things like this... “Yeah exactly, I don’t want some standard health-care I want my own!” or “this is why the health-care bill isn’t good, it will ruin me!” Are you wrong? Of course not, most likely in the long run prices will go up for companies and a lot of people would be under that cruddy umbrella. But one must ask this: Was it more wrong for people to have no umbrellas and great umbrellas, or everyone the same cruddy umbrella? After the bill, it claims to give umbrellas to 94% of Americans; surely that is a good thing. Not only that but for those who were already wet it makes the sellers ignore the fact.
If you wish to read the bill itself or the summary, visit this official Government website.
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2010/03/affordable-health-care-for-ame.shtml

2. The bad


“So why is the health-care bill bad? After all, its helping 94% of the population” The health-care bill in itself is not bad, but its implications in the future may be. The main point being is that many health-care companies might go out of business and the ones that do stay in business will make their prices higher and higher. In studying the article hereafter mentioned, This is indeed a problem. Not only is it possible for prices to increase, but If they do, will make the health-care involved less effective. The problem is in this free market society people are looking for the best way to make the most money. If profit is limited by the Government than it is possible that many doctors and other employees involved in the medical field will attempt to find something else more profitable. This sentence by a blogger from thechristianworldview.com probably sums this up the greatest…
Consider the doctors: If the government puts a cap on what a doctor can make for, say, intestinal surgery, then the very talented and intelligent folks who otherwise would have worked very hard to become wealthy surgeons will figure out how to make a very good living in other ways, perhaps in architecture, nuclear technology, or international trade.
So yes, this is bad, this definitely paves the way for the cruddy umbrellas we talked about earlier.

Here is the link for thechristianworldview.com quote Although i am sure this blogger is saying legitimate things, he is a little too harsh in my opinion, so please, if you read his article, don't get caught up in the rally he is seemingly trying to start, read calmly and critically.

http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/2628

3. Speculations
After writing this article I found myself satisfied at the least of the positive and negative aspects of this bill. But is this enough? In this final section, I will look at this bill from a Biblical perspective. My main speculation on this bill is this: Is it right to have mercy on the less fortunate and give them health care or does the Bible say you reap what you sow, that is should they have got to it on their own without aid? Here are some Bible verses to study…


Galatians 6:7
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows

1st Corinthians 9:7-12
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?

These verses can be seen as to supporting the fact that people should get what they deserve, that is if you waste money on gambling and drugs that you should not get health-care. Although this is true, it is not entirely unarguable, for there are many people who are very willing to work and do well and yet are still in unfortunate circumstances.

But what about these verses?

1 John 3:17-18
Whoever has the world's goods and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.

1st Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Philippians 2:4
...Look not only to your own needs, but also to the needs of others.

These verses on the other hand should make you feel uneasy. By voting against the health-care bill are we going against our own as in 1st Timothy? Are we so worried about our own health-care prices rather than the lack of health-care at all for others as in Philippians? Maybe yes, maybe not, but an important question none the less. To finish, Here are two Parables to be considered regarding the bill. Mercies on debt or get what you deserve?

Parable of the Talents (via Wikipedia)
The parable tells of a master who was leaving his home to travel, and before going gave his three servants different amounts of money. (The large unit of money is called a talent, the word not yet having the meaning of a personal aptitude to do certain things.) On returning from his travels, the master asked his servants for an account of the money given to them. The first servant reported that he was given five talents, and he had made five talents more. The master praised the servant as being good and faithful, gave him more responsibility because of his faithfulness, and invited the servant to be joyful together with him.
The second servant said that he had received two talents, and he had made two talents more. The master praised this servant in the same way as being good and faithful, giving him more responsibility and inviting the servant to be joyful together with him.
The last servant who had received one talent reported that knowing his master was a hard man, he buried his talent in the ground for safekeeping, and therefore returned the original amount to his master. The master called him a wicked and lazy servant, saying that he should have placed the money in the bank to generate interest. The master commanded that the one talent be taken away from that servant, and given to the servant with ten talents, because everyone that has much will be given more, and whoever that has a little, even the little that he has will be taken away. And the master ordered the servant to be thrown outside into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.


The Parable of the Prodigal Son (via Wikipedia)
The story is found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus tells the story of a property owner who has two sons. The younger son demands his share of his inheritance while his father is still living, the son goes off to a distant country where he "waste[s] his substance with riotous living" and eventually has to take work as a swineherd (clearly a low point, since swine are unclean in Judaism). There he comes to his senses and decides to return home and throw himself on his father's mercy, thinking that even if his father does disown him, being one of his servants is still far better than feeding pigs. But when he returns home, his father greets him with open arms and hardly gives him a chance to express his repentance. He kills a fatted calf to celebrate his return. The older brother resents the favored treatment of his faithless brother and complains of the lack of reward for his own faithfulness. But the father responds:
“‘My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'

So in conclusion, here is the question: are we, and the Government, supposed to be like the king in the first parable or the father of the prodigal son in the second? Do we force others to reap what they so, or do we keep them under our wing and help them?

Josh Buel