Bush's unintentional SCHIP sermon

There are some things which government is well suited towards delivering in term of services and some to which the private citizen is well suited. Sometimes these even are the same thing. What government is superb for is delivering very large scale services which have a national interest. Health care is one such service, or at leasts it is here in Canada where I live.

Canadian health care is paid for collectively out of general revenues and administered by the provinces. The federal government established standards through legislation which each province must meet, and transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces along with provincial funding and in some provinces a health tax. The system works pretty well, and citizens have access to good health care without the fear that one illness could bankrupt the family. The health of the citizenry is considered to be an issue of national importance, and so our government as our representatives instituted this system in the 1960's. We recognize that without the security of health care, many people would suffer and that many illnesses that could be contained, (i.e. infectious diseases), would have a far wider vector for transmission.

Along with health care, Canadian society has a much lower rate of incarceration of its citizens, especially for drug related and purely property offenses. Our crime statistics are in decline and despite the high visibility of violent crime, the actual numbers continue a downward trend. No doubt our attitudes about guns and the laws we have created to control them have a positive affect here, (and yes there is an element of controversy around the gun registration program which is of marginal utility and excessive cost.)

Since democratic government is a collective that represents and acts on behalf of and as an agent for the citizen; it is reasonable that it should reflect the common values of its people. In Canada, most of the people believe that health care for our neighbours is something that must be provided, and can be augmented through individual charitable donation. Allowing people who have no or limited means to simply suffer and sometimes die from treatable health problems is not something which we either individually or collectively accept, and so we provide health care to everyone, whether you have a nickel to your name or not. To not do so would be to advocate a rather brutal form of social Darwinism, where the poor can go and suffer and die if they cannot compete, (and preferably they should do it quietly and with as little fuss to the rest of us as is possible.) That is not a Canadian value. Hence, publicly funded universal health care is a reflection of ideals and values which have a root in the cultural and religious principle of charity and concern for our neighbour. We are very much our brother's keeper. His welfare affects my welfare, and even though it means that I must shoulder a cost through taxation, it is a reflection of those old Christian ideals of love of one's brother. It is also efficient, (based on the percentage of GDP that goes into health care costs in Canada versus the United States.)

In conclusion, universal health care, funded collectively by the state, is very much an expression of love of one's neighbour, a fundamental value within the Christian tradition. It in no way inhibits citizens and churches from doing more to help those in need, to express that same laudable ideal. For this reason and for others it is easy to see the link between the concern for one's neighbour and its expression within public policy. There is hence, substantial alignment between the Christian commandment to love one's neighbour and public policy that delivers health care to all citizens.

The Cardinal of San Francisco - who is now in Rome doing Pope Benedict's old job was faced with the demand for partnership benefits. It was a rapidly becoming a norm in San Francisco and what's a guy to do about this. It finally came down to. It is a matter of justice in a civilized society that everyone have health care. Therefore, if the church can provide health care for those who would not have it by covering these partnerships - then it is a matter of social justice to cover them. And social justice trumps a lot of things.
President Bush appears to be a monster in this thing and in reality - he is. Perhaps he has forgotten the injunction - about doing this for the least of your brothers, you have done it for me.
The practical thing is that many children are doing without healthcare. Houseing has become an immense portion of lower middle class life. Transportation and gas to work has grown exponentially. They are hanging on by their fingernails. An accident - in which your uninsured child is mildly injured - well there goes the house and possibly the job. A serious illness - bankruptcy is in your future.
Somehow he expects these kids to somehow - just go away - and their parents to somehow stretch to cover insurance that means - something else very essential will have to go. Utilities ( big ol profits for big ol companies, housing - (that pesky mortgage industry); transportation - bought a used care that needs lots of gas and now it is killing us - and insurance - well maybe we'll be ok. It's a gamble.
Children who are sick should not be sacrificed at the altar of the free market. Alternatives might exist, but nobody is coming up with them. At this point - he looks like a monster and perhaps he is. There is nothing more cruel or dangerous than an ideologue. It appears that is his final refuge.

What kind of world do we want to live in. Want somebody to be filming our destroyed cities with pictures of little kids - barefoot and fly-covered? Begging for $1.00 a day to save these children? Oh, I forgot, that already exists in New Orleans and elsewhere. The population is immense and to live as if we are a small and self-sufficient community is simply against the Gospel. We must live as if we can somehow be part of caring for one another. People are terrified of some big medical government monolith. It already exists. How does business, profit and non profit corporation, the disabled the the poor, the wealthy and healthy - how do we do this health care thing. Much of it has to do with prevention and with living in a manner that is not so stressful that it kills people with cancer and heart disease. part of it would require citizens to examine the way food is produced, the way education occurs. Health care is the big one because so many of the ways we are unhealthy are very profitable. The great monoliths are partnered with government - the pharmaceutical companies really kind of like having a culture that needs this many drugs. The military industrial complex- the one Eisenhower warned us about - well it needs wars and victims of wars to continue. The prison / injustice system - needs warm bodies to both fill the cells and to guard them. Health is much bigger than insurance - it is about not telling lies anymore to ourselves and to everybody else.
The biggest fear I hear among friends and acquaintances is the very prospect of losing insurance or health coverage. What does that say about us. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Christians, Jews, Muslims and athiests all agree this "dis-ease" that is permeating our culture must be treated. How do we treat it. Ignore it and it is cancer and we die quickly. Overtreat it and we have new diseases around the treatment. It will require much of us. To be honest Hilary Clinton's plan and John Edwards' plan and Barack Obama's plan all have elements that could be used to create a means of cooperating towards solving this issue. So far - and I keep listening - the only Republican plan for this immense issue is to make us afraid of talking about it. Catchwords like socialized medicine are thrown out.
I've actually read most of what the candidates have put out on this one. Not all - but keeping up with solutions is a moral responsibility in my book. Haven't come to firm conclusions except that not to act is immoral. Throwing out the fear of a government monolith is not a solution and seems to be a bit ostrich like (you know putting our heads in the sand and pretending like it will never affect us).

C'mon Donny, tell us what you really think about the issue.

Inquiring minds want to know.

David:

Can you explain why you believe "there is obviously a vital role for government in caring for people"? I am not sure why you think there is such a role. It is not obvious to me.

You also wrote, "If the church were really, truly being the church we wouldn't have huge debates and discussions about funding faith-based programs because, frankly, those programs would be so flush in cash the last thing they would need is more money."

That's true, however, nothing happens in a vacuum. Two huge reasons why the church does less than it should are that people have high taxes, and because people see the government as the agent of charity in our country, because it has taken on that role in the last century.

Many people say or think, "Why should I give to my church for their soup kitchen? I pay taxes." And this is nothing new. Heck, I remember a quote similar to that in "It's A Wonderful Life," which was produced long before either of us was born. Slowly but surely, and probably inevitably, as government takes on more of a role in charity, private charities do less because people just figure the government should do it. And of course, as private charities do less, government is then called on to do even more.

It's a vicious cycle. And it brings me back to the question of whether government should have ever gotten into the charity business, "caring for people," in the first place.

I am not trying to exonerate the church. Christ didn't say "give so long as government isn't already taxing you to help people." But that doesn't mean government itself hasn't been a dominant factor in the decline we've seen.

Isn't it time that we start talking at least as much about the revolution that needs to occur in the church as we do about the changes that need to occur in government?

Yes. But we each only have so much time in our day, and I have plenty of friends who work at churches who talk about revolutionizing the church, and they have me to talk about changing government. :-)

Without answering on David's behalf, let me take a crack at your question as to why "there is obviously a vital role for government in caring for people"?

Democratic government in terms of the bills it enacts and the programs it funds, acts as an agent for the citizenry. It attempts to reflect the broad values of the society, and to fund those services that reflect that broad set of values and protect the national interest, including security.

Social costs always exist within a society. These social costs can be addressed in numerous ways and through numerous agencies, but they will always arise. If a social cost is being adequately addressed outside of government there may be no requirement for government to take on a role and to provide services unless it is to establish or enhance its sovereignty by being the deliverer of the service. In the case of health care the point can be argued that the service is not being adequately delivered by non-government providers in the U.S. . This argument can be buttressed by examining statistics for the percentage of GDP used for health care, and health indicators (such as life expectancy, childbirth mortality, maternal death in delivery et cetera). By seeing the same statistics for different countries, it can be discerned that the U.S. health care system does not deliver services as effectively and efficiently over the population as other countries. Clearly the U.S. does poorly on the cost, and it is not near the head of the pack when it comes to the health indicators. (To see a compare and contrast between Canada and the U.S. in this area see the following powerpoint presentation http://www.acmp.org/meetings/scottsdale_2004/professional/Podgorsak.ppt) Also clearly Canada's system (which is compared with the U.S. system in the Podgorsak paper), faces its own challenges.

Since the current approach to health care in the U.S. has substantial deficiencies and there is a compelling national interest in the health of citizens of the nation for both social, economic and security reasons; there is a role for government in the delivery of health care to the people.

There is also a moral requirement to assure access to an effective minimal level of health care to all citizens, which is not currently being met. If that moral requirement is a reflection of the broad values of the citizenry, government as the agency of the people clearly has a role in providing a service that meets that requirement. This does not preclude the charitable involvement of individuals and non-government organizations to meet the same need, and when individuals and NGO's do meet the need, the level of government involvement in delivery of services can be reduced. However, it must be shown that non-government delivery of services is effective and efficient, and that there are no substantial gaps with regard to accessibility.

Jillian:

Pudge, even if government did nothing charitable, your taxes would still be "high" to you.

You are putting words in my mouth. And in this case, it's not true. Let's not make this personal. Since you may not believe me, let me be clear: I am not against taxation. I am against taxation for things that I don't believe the government should be doing. For example, we have a very high debt in this country, and if the government were stripped bare of all programs I think the government should not be doing, I would not necessarily want a tax cut, as the remaining revenue could be used to pay down the debt. Short term pain, but long term gain.

(In reality, I'd probably want a significant, but not huge, tax cut, so that we could have more money in our pockets to help drive the economy and pay for those "lost" services as needed, but also have extra money to pay down the debt. Of course, in reality, we are not going to strip the federal government that bare any time soon!)

And if government reflects any of the values of society, shouldn't charity be one?

Why should government reflect the values of society?

This is an honest and serious question. Many people assume it, and I tend to reject it. This is the significant divide we've got, and I'd like to examine it, not just from a political/philosophical perspective, but from a Christian perspective.

Frederic Bastiat, 150 years ago or so, wrote, in describing his battle with French socialists (I am not calling you socialists, I am calling Bastiat's opponents socialists!):

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word 'fraternity' from the word 'voluntary.' I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be 'legally' enforced without liberty being 'legally' destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

Bastiat wrote from the perspective, that I tend to agree with, that Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of perdson and property, and that government's role is to enforce the Law. In mid-19th century France, his socialist opponents believed in liberty, but they also believed that fraternity must be enforced. Libert´, Egalit´, Fratetnit´, the French creed. And I think we here agree that those are all important. But Bastiat made the point that you cannot have government enforcement the latter two without sacrificing enforcement of the first, because the government -- the law -- exists to protect our person and property, and when government takes from you to give to someone else, that is violating your property.

This does not mean selfishness. Bastiat went on:

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

I have one more point (for now) that I want to address, but leave it as a separate comment because it is beside the real point here: the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution quite clearly means that federal welfare programs -- Social Security, Medicare, No Child Left Behind, SCHIP -- are unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment means what it says, and the Framers -- including its author, James Madison -- were entirely clear: the federal government can only do what the Constitution says the federal government can do. There is nothing in the Constitution about welfare, except the phrase "general welfare," and that is, as Madison noted, not a license to pay for anything the Congress happens to think is in the general welfare; rather, it is a description of the enumerated powers to follow.

Now, many people disagree on this point. However, there is no question whatsoever, no debate, that this is what the Constitution was intended to mean. When Madison said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions," he was making a mere statement of fact, or giving a compliment. He was giving one of the most serious indictments he could: an indictment that could literally, at the time, lead to the dissolution of the union, because none of the states wanted such an indefinite federal government.

Whether we choose to obey the Constitution on this point is another question. You may say "times change," but I say "then modify the Constitution: until then, the Law stands for me." Now, I also think -- as hinted at above -- that the Tenth Amendment is good. So I would oppose changing it.

But my point here is merely that while we are talking about the morality of government helping people, I'd add that it is immoral to routinely violate the Constitution.

Again, I don't want to dwell on this, because it is beside my point above: I am not questioning, directly, whether "there is obviously a vital role for federal government in caring for people," but whether "there is obviously a vital role for any government in caring for people."

But nevertheless, if someone tells me there is a moral obligation to support SCHIP, I think, "what of my moral obilgation -- and the oaths of our elected officals -- to the Constitution?"

Bush sure picked a good piece of legislation to veto in order to convince fiscal conservatives that he is a Deficit Hawk -- NOT!

simpleton obmoody: maybe the problem is that we are too busy trying to find solutions, instead of just doing the work.

Pudge: I do see where you are coming from (here and in our previous discussion) and I don't think you are lacking in caring or compassion because of it.

But it does make me curious. How do you feel about the public funding/government funding of education? Is this a service which the government should provide?

Second question - given this view of limited government, how are inequities of social power to be dealt with? Such as the 19th century children sweatshops, or the issue of the coal companies enforcing company stores, etc?

Charity:

How do you feel about the public funding/government funding of education? Is this a service which the government should provide?

Just to eliminate confusion: I am talking about government funding, and further, federally, no, it should not. That is unconstitutional, as per the Tenth Amendment.

At the state and local level, I think it is suboptimal. For many reasons, I think government schools are just a bad idea. I don't want to get too deeply into that very large discussion here, but my reasons why I think it is a bad idea relating to the topic at hand are the same: we can do it better without government, and when government does it, it takes away the liberty of everyone, by forcing them to participate.

I see no reason why we can't run schools ourselves, privately. And make them available to everyone. The two reasons normally given, I just don't accept: that the resources would not be there (except the resources ARE there: they are used by the government now!), and that we "need" a standard. The standard thing is the especially crazy one to me: on what planet is an elected or appointed government official, or group of officials, more qualified to determine what is a good education than a parent? If a parent asks for help in such a determination, fine. But I am more than capable of making the actual decisions for my children.

Some people want to even take away my right to do that. For the good of "all children," eliminate homeschooling and charter schools and even private schools, some of them say. It's mind-boggling to me that people believe this, but ... I do understand it. They think the only way society can flourish is if some "enlightened" people at the top "manage" society. I think that is the best way to prevent society from flourishing.

(And don't even get me started on the extraordinarily offensive proposal by Hillary Clinton that would require, federally(!), all people in the U.S. to purchase health insurance. It is just an absolutely incredible violation of our rights to liberty, to property, to association. No longer are we being taxed for what we DO, now we are taxed for EXISTING! Just incredible.)

All that said, I do not always vote against school taxes, or begrudge paying my taxes to the government for the sake of schools. I realize that, like it or not, we DO have a very large public school system, and this is how most children get their education. I opt out of it for my family, but I do support it as long as it exists. I just prefer that it didn't.

Second question - given this view of limited government, how are inequities of social power to be dealt with? Such as the 19th century children sweatshops, or the issue of the coal companies enforcing company stores, etc?

I am not sure how clearly I stated it before, but I'll state it again: the purpose of the law is to organize our collective individual rights to person and property. So, if you believe that a sweatshop or forcing company stores is a violation of the worker's right to person or property, then there's no reason government can't make laws against it.

When I say "can't" in this context, I am speaking philosophically, about my philosophy of liberty and government (which is shared by millions). I am not saying it is illegal. The only thing I said was illegal is the federal government's exercise of any power the Constitution does not grant to it. I keep emphasizing this because there's often confusion about it.

Thanks for the questions.

pudge:

Do keep in mind that while I know you are a 10th Amendment purist, and thus the federal pass-through monies are themselves objectionable to you, the actual SCHIP program is administered by the 50 states, not the federal government.

If the dispute is not ultimately worked out, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has said he would be willing to raise taxes here in order to make SCHIP an entirely state-funded program. I assume you would be overjoyed by this.

Larry Parker:

I understand what you are saying, but as I said: no, I support the public schools as long as they exist. When I lived in Southern California, there were significant inequities there in the public schools, and while I was not one to try to make things "equal" (which would be impossible, unless you prevented the very richest neighborhoods from just pouring money into their schools, which would take away their local rights), I did advocate more state money to helping those communities that were incredibly poor and simply couldn't fund basic requirements.

As long as those programs are "the way things are done," I won't try to undermine them, and I won't tell poor kids they just have to deal with whatever scraps the government has left over.

As to SCHIP, I realize it is administered by the states. But the Tenth Amendment even forbids the giving of federal money for such purposes. Madison spoke not just of federal government "doing," but also of federal government using money, saying things like "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare ... it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ..."

That said, no, I wouldn't be overjoyed by making SCHIP a state program, though it would be better than a federal program. But since it would be in New Jersey, I wouldn't have to care. :-)

So the Dems have passed what amounts to welfare for the rich to be paid by higher taxes on the poor. That sounds very Christian.