Great post.
Brings back memories….
My father,who was a professor of oral medicine, fought hard to try to keep the dental school from teaching students to call their patients “customers.” The concern you have articulated was precisely his. To consider a patient a “customer” is to turn upside down the relationship between the healer and the patient.

I think these are excellent questions. I think the answer lies with America’s distrust of government unless it’s absolutely necessary. I think it’s a matter of debate whether in fact it is not absolutely necessary to have a government organized health care plan, maybe yes, maybe no. I tend to agree with you here, I think we probably should have one, but I also understand my father when he nearly jumps out of his recliner to exclaim “These are the same people who run the IRS and FEMA, you want them running health care too?”
I think too the difference between the military and health care is that military threats are pretty obviously “our” problem, whereas your health situation is pretty obviously “your” problem. America has been traditionally adverse to the idea of the government legislating the love of neighbor. Traditionally. Now, I don’t know.
McCain: If we believe that our government is us, then why shouldn’t we be taking care of us? I really so no problem, in principle, with the concept of socialized health care. I’m not sure why handing all this over to private insurance companies whose chief purpose is making stockholders wealthy is the best way to go.

Interesting questions. Worth asking. My only comment would be–take a look at the socialized health care systems around the world. They are generally of very poor quality. In Germany I have heard that it takes months…months to get seen by a doctor for some very serious things. Maybe the answer to some of your questions is simply pragmatism. We want our health care to be good, and experience demonstrates that government run/funded health care is of a lower quality.
Personally I am not against other people becoming wealthy. In fact, I would rather see individuals create and develop wealth than the government. I understand your concerns, but honestly believe that there are good reason *not* to have socialized medicine. With regard to the fifth and seventh commandments, here is my take. Individually, yes, we ought to do all we can to help and serve our neighbor. It is certainly part of the government’s responsibility to help truly needy people, and I am more than willing to be a part of that. However, it is also true that any good set of parents works towards helping their children become more indepdent and self-sufficient. That is part of the parents’ (and I would add government’s) responsibility.
7th commandment not only forbids stealing but also is meant to protect my property and income. It is not a sin to own and possess private property. I do not have a problem with individuals or groups willingly, voluntarily giving money to help causes or individuals. I have a problem with government taking out of my pocket to give to someone else. That is stealing. That is breaking the 7th commandment. Again, each of us ought to be generous with what we have been given, especially to those who are truly needy. But let it be voluntary, not coerced.

A quick Google search will show what’s wrong with socialized medicine. Governments are not competent for administering medical care. It’s not a matter of us being selfish in America and unwilling to help out our neighbor, it’s a matter of not trusting the government to take care of us and our neighbor. By accepting the idea of a universal healthcare system, I’m not just assuming the responsibility of my neighbor’s care, I’m also sacrificing the quality of care for myself and my children.
The horror stories I found in less than a minute searching the net will give me nightmares tonight. As if I weren’t already breaking the First Commandment left and right every time I think about the upcoming Obama administration. *sigh* Usually this blog is an encouragement to me.

Show me the plan. British-style health care is truly a joke.
If we can’t come up with something that has *in some way* market forces in play, it won’t work. If it is going to be government run, then make it local government run. Otherwise, don’t expect to get that colonoscopy exam any year soon.

I am unemployed, and paying for health insurance out of my own pocket. In order to keep the insurance for my family affordable, I opted for insurance with a $3000 per person deductible. I thought that was a good idea at the time, but then I had a trip to the emergency room, which was entirely at my own expense (about $2800). Ouch. Additionally, my wife was denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I’m looking into a state insurance program for people who have been denied coverage, but am looking at a $10,000 deductible to keep it affordable. I’ll probably go ahead and do this just to cover potential catastrophes, but right now, even something quite a bit below that deductible would be a catastrophe.
I’d like to see something done to make affordable insurance available to all, whether it is a private program or a government one.

In short, because “Universal healthcare” fails to deliver.
Thomas Sowell puts it quit well here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3652

Also see these two:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/09/04/no_health_care
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2003/05/06/universal_health_care

The long-time aphorism about government health care is that it would be as cost-effective as the Pentagon, as quick and reliable as the Post Office and as compassionate as the IRS. There are certainly examples around the world of the truth of that saying (cost-effective like the British National Health, quick as the Canadian health system, reliable as the German system, where the doctors went on strike about twenty years ago, and compassionate like the Dutch health system [which actively promotes euthanasia]), as a disabled veteran, I can testify that my government health care has been very good–including when I had a stroke while visiting the Ft. Wayne seminary and was taken to the Ft. Wayne VA Medical Center. While there have been delays in some treatment, that has never been when time was a significant factor. The VA hospital medical personnel have been very kind through the years. As to cost-effectiveness, I can’t evaluate that, but I have seen where there have been measures that quite clearly saved them (and thereby the taxpayers) money.
The arguments against socialized medicine had a point when most medical care was paid for directly by the patient. The intervention of a huge, impersonal, bureaucratic third party into one’s medical care was not desirable and necessarily involved the addition of bureaucratic costs to the cost of care. Now, however, the huge, impersonal bureaucratic third party is already in there, whether it is the government or the insurance company. At least the government is adding only its costs to the cost of care, not its need to turn a profit.
So although I am a Republican, I agree entirely with Pr. McCain’s post.

Doesn’t all of what we do and how we do it revolve around the singluar person, the word ‘I’. We look out for our own and not for others, sure glad Christ didn’t ignore us and look out for himself. When I was small I don’t remember my mom and dad not giving to others first, the check came the church was the first dollars put into the drawer for giving on Sunday and then they put aside a amount for other peoples needs. This is what I learned and have taught our children. They where the first to help when the need was there for someone with a problem. Christ came to serve and not to be served just think if everyone in the nation would care for one another just how much would we need to depend on anything else. On Christ alone our cornerstone we stand. Care for the needy and love the forgotten.

You make a jump here that has become sadly too common. The Commandments deal with me and how I am to love my neighbor. . . they are descriptive of the life of a Christian, not descriptive of government itself. I would argue once we have the idea of “the government takes care of this” American Christians forget that they have any responsibility as individuals to care for the neighbor.
Consider discussions of helping the poor or homeless with food or shelter. How many people think that they as private citizens have a responsibility to help such folks — and how many think, “Isn’t there a program to help them – what’s wrong with these people?” If anything, governmental assistance hardens the heart of the individual.
Now, might we as a Church decide to do what we did in the old days as regards the 7th Commandment and found more hospitals to act in charitable ways (and as non-profits)? Sure! Or even to pool resources to help pay for medical care for the uninsured? (Or, you know, maybe even pool resources to cover the insurance for our own Church workers, so folks at small parishes or schools don’t get told the Concordia plan is too expensive?) That would be us as individuals showing love — that is what we are commanded to do.
This doesn’t mean that the government can’t or shouldn’t have universal health care — but that becomes a question of politics and worldly wisdom, not religious and moral mandate.

We are passionately against legalized abortion because abortion is clearly a violation of the 5th commandment. We do not want our laws to contradict God’s law.
Our current medical system is not a violation of the 5th or 7th commandments, neither would socialized health care be a violation of the same. In all systems there are abuses, strengths and weaknesses, and pious men will disagree about which is best.
When we speak against legalized abortion we are not advocating the superiority of one system of government over another or lobbying for any specific legalization. We are simply calling for the government (and its citizens) to fulfill its most basic and sacred duty: to protect the lives of its citizens.
McCain: I agree that one of the most basic duties of a nation is to protect the lives of its citizens. Every other industrialized nation on earth, except ours, recognizes that this includes providing universal health care for all. We decided a long time ago to nationalize fire protection. We no longer leave that to the private interests. Running through many responses to these comments is a view of government in the USA that runs contrary to our founding documents. Government is not “them” it is “us.” And if we, the people, decide to extend to all our fellow citizens the right to health care, as a basic human right, then we, the people, are doing so as a way to care for one another. I don’t see how we can, on the one hand, argue so strenuously against abortion, which we should, while permitting the growing scandal of privatized health care to exist in which we have people, some of whom have spoken up in this comment stream, struggling to receive even the most basic health care services. We should be able to care for one another, as a people, as a nation. It is not “government” doing the care, it is we, the people, who are, in such a system. Why does every other industrialized nation on earth understand this, but “we” do not?

Perhaps a better idea would be health care administered by the States, and not by the feds. The more involvement by the federal government, the less freedom we have to choose how we want our health care delivered, and by whom. To those who are concerned that we are not putting others first, where in the Bible does it say that I have to put everyone else first before my own family members? This is not about putting “me” first, it is about thinking of what is best for my family members. Each of us should look out for the best interests of our neighbor. By being in favor of privatized, market-driven health care, I am doing that. I’m looking out for the best interests of my neighbor, because I know that it will end up being of better quality, and more efficient in the end.
McCain: Paul, have you taken a closer look at this issue? It is highly debatable that in fact we are providing best for our neighbor by advocating a system of health care where the “interest” is not for the neighbor, but for the company’s profit margin. The more I look into this, and consider what other industrialized nations are doing, the less I’m inclined to think the USA is getting this one right. I think everyone knows the system is broken and that we have millions of people in this nation who are under-insured and even more: millions with insurance but who are denied basic care and go bankrupt trying to obtain the care they need, thanks to the Draconian policies of the major health insurance companies. THey are denied care which they would receive without such hardship were they a citizen of Canada, France, England, Norway, etc. etc. I think we can, and should, care for our neighbor. I’m happy to pay taxes to fun the national defense of our nation and would be fine with paying for national health care too.

Paul, you are certainly free to think that way, and if you have no problem paying for national health care, that is fine too. I do have a problem with it, and I don’t think I am breaking any commandments by thinking that way. I have just heard too many horror stories from people who have lived in countries where there is socialized medicine. Another example would be that of California, which has a quasi-socialized system (state-run). They are going into debt because of it. In Germany it takes six months for some to get an MRI. I want the freedom of being able to choose my own doctors, not being told who I can or cannot go to. That is federalized health care.

As an aside, I do not disagree with you that there are abuses. Petersen is right–there are abuses on both sides.

A few quick points:
1 – Fire departments aren’t nationalized. They are local. Many things are handled by local government — so this discussion can also spiral into a federal vs. state vs. local debate, even if we decide that the government should handle health care. Which government?
2- In all practicality, we are not a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” any more. What ownership do people have in Washington? We are a land of voter apathy where people feel an innate distance from the government. Look at all the discussion on the bailout plans – did anyone say, “We as the American people need to bail these folks out” or was it a discussion of what “Washington” should do or the “Government” should do? If you hadn’t noticed, much of how our government is run today is contrary to our founding documents.
3 – Reference to the founding documents is a really poor idea if you want to argue for nationalized health care. Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to enact such a program?
4 – Even if you move to the idea that I care for my neighbor through the government (gads, my love is apparently Caesar’s love now), this debate becomes a matter of priority. Yes – there are 45 million uninsured in the US. That also means that there are 250+ who are. How will those 250 be effected. Would trading excellent (if expensive) care for 300 million people (and even the uninsured can get emergency care even in this system) so that all those people might get mediocre care (with the benefit of more financial security for 45 million) be the best trade-off in caring for the neighbor? Is the gain worth worth the cost? We ought be effective in showing love as well.
>>McCain: Eric, check out the comment stream here for a very typical story of a person *with* health insurance, who has been put into rather dire straights, in spite of being insured. It is not only those who have no insurance, but very much a problem for those who have insurance. I see this as every much a “right to life” issue as abortion. Why is it that the USA is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide adequately for the health care of its citizenry?<<

The fact that we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world corresponds with the fact that we are the ONLY industrialized nation where labor and delivery normally takes place under the care of physicians instead of midwives. That is a systemic defect. Our insurer says they provide the same coverage for midwife assisted birth as for physician assisted birth. My wife has given birth to three boys in two home births, and we have paid every penny out of our own pocket. We choose this environment BECAUSE statistically speaking, there is good reason to expect fewer complications at home, under the care of a midwife, than in a hospital under the care of a physician.
One of our midwives when our twins were born this past April was a young lady from Missouri, who would be (I believe) criminally liable under Missouri law if she practiced her art in her home state. This is an outrageous injustice, but, I fear, we could expect only more of the same if the feds usurped control of our healthcare system.

Thank you for making us think hard about this, Pastor McCain. Too many of us American Christians have a knee-jerk reaction against this concept that is based more on our Americanism than our allegiance to Christ, I think. I lived in Germany for a number of years–and found their health care system acceptable, as did the German Christians who live there.

I have a friend whose father-in-law lives in Canada. The Father-in-law had a heart attack. He lived in a rural area and was sent to a medical center but was not able to see a doctor until his condition was considered serious enough after having another heart attack.
There is already a shortage of doctors in America and the insurance system has only made it worse. In fields of medicine such as lasik surgery and cosmetic surgery where insurance companies have had little interest, the cost keeps getting cheaper. When insurance companies are present the cost keeps getting higher. Technological advances should make health care cheaper and cheaper all the time. In times past there were many charity organizations and hospitals set up to treat people that could not afford it–no questions asked. Those are disappearing because government is taking over and things aren’t getting better because of it.
Universal healthcare sounds nice but so does universal food. Everyone deserves food right? So why not have the government provide it? Of course everyone would be using a lot more steak and costs of food would skyrocket.
I would much rather the US spend its money on healthcare than on the countless wars but I think it would do more harm than good.

One of the issues of socialized medicine is how it is rationed; and the problems that rationing causes. (I’m putting on my actuary/economist hat to point out how Godless people might react.) For example, is it cheaper to give by-pass surgery or euthanize a patient? And at what point does an agency approve by-pass over euthanasia? We are making the assumption that euthanasia will never enter the picture. Further, my generation has grown up with the indoctrination that it is OK to kill people (babies) even if they are merely an inconvenience to the mother. What makes any of us think that in turn, that same generation won’t go off and kill their parents?
Further, if one reads “Socialism and the Soul of Man” by Oscar Wilde, the assumption is made that there are an elite group of people who know what is best for the general population. Is that really the case?
Neither Captialism nor Socialism are moral; they are economic systems. People are more free to be charitable under a capitalist system than in a socialist system.

We’ve “socialized” fire and police services, but primarily on a local level.
If we are going to do this in the US, it should also be done at the local (or state) level. The federal government is too inefficient.

Rev. McCain,
I agree with your post and how you came to that conclusion. Reading both scripture, and Luther has prompted me to think twice over many ideas I had previously assumed…tax exemption for churches being one of them.
The minute you ask such questions, I find that people try to shut it down, yet less due for exegetical reasons and more for political and philosophical reasons.
I’ve been called a liberal for suggesting that I want a portion of my tax dollars to help the genuinely need and sick in my community. I think thats a shame.
Many give compelling arguments about why universal health care doesn’t work, but as far as I can tell, private companies using health care as a commodity isn’t working either.
We should all be willing to expose ourselves to these and other important and nuanced questions.

I want to thank you for bringing this up. I think that capitalism is the best economic system in the world and runs better without government regulation. But what bothers me is the fact that human nature always comes to the front. I am disturbed by the human tragedies that happen because of the lack of ability or compassion of those who are in charge of insurance companies. Many people who need help often do not get the help they need.But, this also happens in Canadadian socialized care and are the infant mortality rates referred to here also including the infanticide that is committed on regular basis in the United States
Self interest has become many peoples goal to the extreme and many abuses of the capitalist system have occurred. The people whao are in control of things such as insurance have apparently violated their own self interests by not thinking of other peoples self interest. But, is government intervention and lack of expertise in delivering service the answer? Apparently, not in Canada or England.
I what we have here is a deeper issue of the corruption of human nature and a crisis in faith in business and the kingdom of the left hand trying to do to much. Maybe the solution is for both to work together. This is a disturbing issue and it can lead to many other moral crises.

Pastor McCain,
Consider this in your thoughts on government health care. It is a little known fact among those who don’t work in health care that the current government programs have actually mandated that doctors are not allowed to do charity care in their practices. If they accept Medicaid patients and then turn around and give free care to anyone else (say someone who fell through the cracks) – they are subject to very stiff fines. In that respect, our current governmental system took away one way that doctors can share the gifts that God has given them with those in need. I don’t see that expanding government health care to everyone would be the solution to that problem. Take a look at the promotion of the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress (something that Obama has said will be one of the first things he promotes as president). This act would force doctors and hospitals with moral objections to offer abortions. Do I want more government in my health care – especially with these trends? No way!

I agree that we have a responsibilty for taking care of poor and the infirm. I disagree that the answer is to refer this up to the government. If you want to see what will happen if the government runs health care, just look at the public education system in this country.

To Steven G., I say A—MEN! What in the world is so unChristian about the concept of free markets capitalism? What is so wrong with people becoming wealthy, when that wealth is made honestly?
{{{McCain: Paul, my concern is the flip side of yours, “What is so unChristian about socialized medicine?” To hear some us talk about free-market capitalism, you would think that it is somehow the “most Christian” system of organizing an economy and a society. Luther had more than a few choice words to say about “free market” economies in the Large Catechism. I suppose an entire economic system that is predicated, frankly, on greed, has proven to be an effective one, but….is it the best one? Can not society and a people aspire to something better than a system where, clearly, the rich just become more and more rich, and the poor become poorer, and are doomed to a never ending cycle of poverty? I think we can. “We the people” can do whatever we feel is best, and I think that there is a growing groundswell of support for taking a very hard, long look at these things. If you would investigate the practices of all the major health insurance providers, I believe you will find that there is not “honest” wealth being made, but precisely what Luther warns against: not looking out for our neighbor, but obtaining what is not rightly ours, or depriving our neighbor of what is rightly in a way that only seems right.}}}

Dear Brother Paul!
I been rejoicing and praising God ever since I read your post late last evening. Thank God for your post! You are absolutely right on! Far be it from me, as a Canadian, to suggest to you and your fellow Americans how to order your lives ….. but, let me share with you from the heart the common knowledge that any political party in Canada who advocated diminishing, much less revoking, our universal health care system would never ever be elected. We don’t call it socialism. The people here speak clearly about what they like and what they want. We also believe that we are a free country!
Our standard of living here is excellent, although not as high as yours. There is, I think, less a gap here between the rich and the poor; although poverty is still a problem we are facing. However, even the poorest street person gets the same excellent care as anyone else. We all have equal health care. If that has caused a slightly decreased standard of living, so be it! We live well here in Canada, by God’s Grace. Come visit us! *smile*
I do not have any health insurance and never have had since I was sent to Canada to be ordained here in 1962. I rejoice to see health care growing doing those years until it is the beautiful system it is now. In 1983 because of diverticulitis I had a colostomy. In 1984 it was reversed. Major surgeries. Extensive recoveries. All at no cost to me. On February 27 of this year I had spinal surgery with a world class neurologist repairing two damaged vertebrae and inserting 2 10-inch titanium rods, one on each side of the spine. Incredible surgery. I can live a full and productive life again! Then six weeks of physical therapy at a world class health centre. All at no cost to me.
My wife had breast cancer. Surgery. Then surgery again! Then 6 weeks of radiation treatment in Buffalo, New York. (Our government wanted immediate treatment and bought it from Roswell Cancer Centre.) Then, horrors! – she developed cancer in the other breast – then surgery again – then radiation treatment again – this time locally – All at no cost to us! And she lives a joyful and productive life.
Brother Paul, I pray that somehow, someway some of the thoughts you expressed in your post may come true for you American people! As I see it, the poor are just as American as the rich. God Bless You for sharing! (I really do intend to keep this on my prayer list for some time to come! *smile*
{{{McCain: Milford, obviously, you are one of those Canadians we Americans apparently know so much about that we know that in spite of what you have experienced your national health care system is terrible, horrible, no good and something America would never, ever, considering doing. Yes, I’m being sarcastic!}}}

I think those in favor of universal healthcare are missing something fairly big, and that’s the secondary effects of free market healthcare. Who will fund all the advancements in medical equipment and drugs? At best, the goverment will be picking the winners and losers in this arena. At worst, innovation will stagnate. I believe, that to some extent, Canada and every other single-payer system is living off U.S. capital.
{{{McCain: It is a common misperception that drug companies are the principle providers of monies for new drugs, when in fact, government subsidy is. Further, drug companies make minor tweeks in medicines in order to retain a patent to boost profit and revenue. I’m glad Jonas Salk did not patent his vaccine for polio. I would be more open to the idea that drug companies are sincere about providing for the public good if they would demontrate a willingness to plow more of their profit into health care for the poor and needy in this nation. I do not believe that paying CEOs the incredibly high salaries they make is an indication on their part that they are committed to the public health as their chief and primary priority. I can vote people out of office who are not so inclined, but I have no power to fire drug company leadership. I think that is an important consideration as well. And if we all knew more about the extent to which the drug companies buy and pay for politicians support, that might make us rethink out system as well.
Here is some food for thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/business/28foundation.html?ex=1309147200en=0677363e60c6f7ab&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
One more thing: While being interviewed by Edward R. Murrow on See It Now in 1955, Salk was asked: “Who owns the patent on this vaccine?” Surprised by the question’s assumption of the requirement of a profit motive for his creation, he responded: “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”}}}

Thank you for the conversation. This is an issue I have been wrestling with as well. I have a number of uninsured young members, and they are in my prayers daily. The commandments apply to all alike, and while this is an issue of the left hand, the general welfare is an apt matter. We are citizens of both kingdoms. So I must ask not only what my obligation is as a Christian, but what is the general will of God for my neighbor, for all men to obey, whether or not they share my faith. It is well worth wrestling with. On top of that, there is the matter of how the matter of health insurance (especially with regard to retirees) impacts our ability to compete when it comes to manufacturing and other industries. I look forward to hearing further thoughts on the matter and thank you for bringing it up.

Rev Eric Brown,
I think you hit the nail on the head.

Hi Rev. McCain,
Good discussion. I’m just voicing my opinion. I’ve had questions similar as yours, and I’m expressing the way I have resolved it in my own mind. You are certainly free to your opinion. I certainly will not try to hide my bias, or the fact that much of my philosophy on this has been shaped by conservative books and talk show hosts. My wife also is a very astute person in this regard, especially having worked in a health care profession in which she saw first hand the negative effects of Clinton’s health care reform which was towards a more socialized form. She has done a lot of reading and research, and so I do rely on her for much of my thinking. She has good judgment, better so than me usually on these matters. I’ve said my peace. And read with interest the other comments. It’s always good to challenge the conventional way of thinking. Keep it up!

The reason health care, like education, is so expensive in the first place is because of government involvement. Socializing it fully (it’s already partly socialized) will lead to even higher costs which will lead to price controls which will lead to shortages.
Why shouldn’t we just pay for everyone’s cable and cars and everything else?

Where in the U.S. is access to health care “based on the availability of cash, not need?” I’ve come across people with huge medical bills that they can’t pay but have never found someone who was denied needed care.
What constitutes “health care” and who defines it? Does everyone have a right to treatment for ED? Does everyone have a right to the latest experimental anti-cancer drug? Is there a right to have Lasik surgery?

Pastor McCain has brought up a point which obviously strikes a nerve with many people. It has been quite some time since I have seen such vigorous discussion on Cyberbrethren, and it is refreshing to see. As he springs to the defense of the concept of socialized medicine, he can reasonably expect some opposition. Those of us who are against it do well to flex our minds a bit in understanding why.
And what is so wrong with providing health care for everyone? Nothing, as long as we are all agree as to what is included in the term “health care.” Of what does this consist, though? Is it sanitation? Immunizations for children? Mental health care? Preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies? Is it treatment for hypertension and diabetes? Or infertility? Or erectile dysfunction? Is it “treatment” of unwanted pregnancies? These are not all equivalent, so which ones do you want your tax dollars supporting?
I agree with Pastor McCain that it would be nice if drug companies did not feel the need to patent their products.
Larry has unearthed the heart of the matter. No human system will ever eliminate sin or its effects, and no human system will meet all of our needs perfectly. There will always be tragedies where any system has failed. As Christians, we help the least of His brethren. In the civic realm, our job (and I think this is a matter of philosophy and politics, not exegesis) is to find a system which motivates people to do good on their own.

It seems to be that if Canadians were all so happy with their universal care system then why would there be so called Chaoulli copycat cases. Apparently even the Quebec Supreme Court found that Canada’a health care system violated the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The inequity in Canada’s health care system continues according to this article.
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2008/24/c3482.html
Universal health care has obviously not rid the world or those parts of it with universal health care of inequality regarding health care.

May I recommend “Applied Economics” by Dr. Thomas Sowell? This is a book that I wish all in government and the press would read. The problem with government provided heath care is a problem of supply and demand. When government provides and the individual pays little or nothing, demand goes through the roof and this causes long lines and inferior care. A much more efficient way is for individuals and non government groups to help those they see with a real need. For a much better explanation, read Dr. Sowell’s book.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your comments that the government is “us.” In the United States, we do not have a pure democracy; we have a democratic republic, and only two out of the three branches of government are directly elected. Want proof? The Proposition 8 debacle in California illustrates this fact in absurdity, where the voters may be disenfranchised by activist courts. The truth is that the ruler, ruling party, or governing body is the one who wields the sword, and as such is the one who collects taxes. The taxes can be levied in a fair and moral manner, or they can in fact be unfairly high as in many of the socialized European countries, but the fact is that this tax collection is backed up by the sword. It’s just as possible for the governing individuals to sin against the 7th commandment as it is for me.
Where is the doctrine of vocation in all of this discussion of capitalism? Yes, some people are motivated out of greed, and yes, some people sin in their vocation, but isn’t the vocation, the office that people are placed into the means by which God works? The whole point of vocation, as Wingren elucidates from Luther, is that God’s will is done even by the unbeliever in the vocations that He has established. Capitalism is a prime example of a system that works this way. It bends the sinful greed of the individual against itself to work good for the citizen.
It isn’t the place of the government to do works of charity. Do you consider the taxes you pay to be a charitable donation? When did we as a nation convince ourselves that we didn’t really need to support charitable causes, that we could pay people in government to take care of the problem for us (and also pay the salaries and costs of their bureaucracy)? The more we fork over money to the government and expect them to do the charitable works that we are called to do, the more dependent we become on it, and the more power we grant to more corruptible, corrupted human beings. Capitalism isn’t a holy system, it’s of the world, but it’s better than anything else out there including Marxist/communist/socialist systems which always promote statism and destroy religion. As the commentator Mark Steyn has put it, socialist medicine makes the relationship between government and citizen more and more like the relationship between pusher and druggie. At that point we lose our freedom, religious and otherwise.
Your blog is generally excellent, but this post was quite disappointing.

Dear Paul:
I appreciate you broaching this topic. I think we ought to discuss these things, and we should put the best construction on the matter when folks propose solutions that we are very quick to quash based on ideology.
I agree that as Christians, we are obliged to care for the needs of our neighbors (“*when* you give alms…” – Matt 6:3). I had a nice visit to the local food bank today, and their operation is really impressive – manned entirely by volunteers, taking care of both the working poor and the homeless – all apart from government at any level. It’s just people showing love (“charity” which is related to “charis”) to their neighbors without a bureaucracy and government officials skimming for itself or interfering with those who truly know the needs of the people.
I’d like to see more of this thing. There are even free clinics that operate on the same principle of private charity – though I’m sure it is much harder to do in this day and age of megagovernment and meticulous regulations.
We Christians do a lousy job of showing compassion. We conservatives are especially vulnerable, as we typically defend capitalism and free markets to the point where we can conclude falsely that we should not show private altruism (along the lines of the extreme Ayn Rand’s philosophy) or that the poor deserve their poverty and that we are not obliged to help them. If anything, we who advocate private charity are obliged to put our money where our mouths are.
But whenever government gets involved, care becomes a faceless function of a lumbering bureaucracy that drives prices through the roof and stifles creativity and personalized care. It stifles doctors and encourages lawsuits. It also becomes an “entitlement” – which eliminates the “charis” out of the charity.
Then there is the issue that Eric raised about the constitutionality of the matter. Congress has no authority to establish nationalized health care (of course, they have no authority to “delegate” war-making powers to the executive branch, or “bail out” private companies and nationalize industries, to run a Department of Education, to interfere in private weapon ownership, to run the ponzi scheme known as Social Security, to allow for paper money unbacked by gold or silver, to tell auto makers what kinds of cars to make, to ban or regulate drugs, etc. The list goes on and on. Most of these things are authorities reserved to the states (see the 9th and 10th amendments). This disobedience of the Constitution has brought us an imperial nanny-state where we are taxed some 50% of our incomes and where private initiative and responsible behavior are discouraged, and where infanticide is mandated in all 50 states. Enough with the federal government already!
It wasn’t that long ago that people only had health insurance for hospitalization – they paid modest prices for office visits and drugs. When healthcare became corporatized and a huge portion was taken over by government (Medicare and Medicaid – as well as a federal prescription plan), we saw prices soar to where the uninsured are lacking proper health care, and everyone pays inflated prices. The solution is not more government, but less.
If you want all Americans having the kind of health care our veterans get at the V.A. hospitals, let’s amend the Constitution and give Congress that authority. Otherwise, they are obliged to obey the law of the land like anyone else, and butt out.
Just my two cents. Thanks again for the provocative topic.

Amen to what PAstor Beane said. Mea Culpa for not be generous enough with the gifts that God.
Pastor McCain, I have a great deal of respect for you and the other Confessional Pastors that blog. I wanted to say that because I had not said it before. Enough with the gushing.
May you have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Like one of the posts earlier I too had back surgery not quite one year ago. As I visited my neurologists office I could not help but notice all the lawyers saddled up with their patients. No doubt, there were all kinds of workman’s compensation claims that had to be filed and proven. Yet, I couldn’t help but wonder how many of these lawyers were filling endless and senseless litigation. How much does this drive the cost of medical care up. Can you say astronomically. Not only does it drive the cost up it also restrict free and open communication between a doctor and patient. Except of course when the read off the long list of possible side effects and dangers so you have less chance to win a case because, “No one told me that could happen..”
My doc was one of the best in this area. She is known as such and is honored by here peers as such by being given a full range of interns to study under her. She purposely restricts her conversations with patients. After seeing a lounge full of lawyers perhaps I know why. There needs to be a way to bring needless law suits to an end. If that happened I think it would help bring about some reduction in health care costs, perhaps even significant.
Of course there is the tough question as to the definition of needless and senseless litigation when it comes to lasting effects from medical care on our family members and ourselves.

Like one of the posts earlier I too had back surgery not quite one year ago. As I visited my neurologists office I could not help but notice all the lawyers saddled up with their patients. No doubt, there were all kinds of workman’s compensation claims that had to be filed and proven. Yet, I couldn’t help but wonder how many of these lawyers were filling endless and senseless litigation. How much does this drive the cost of medical care up. Can you say astronomically. Not only does it drive the cost up it also restrict free and open communication between a doctor and patient. Except of course when the read off the long list of possible side effects and dangers so you have less chance to win a case because, “No one told me that could happen..”
My doc was one of the best in this area. She is known as such and is honored by here peers as such by being given a full range of interns to study under her. She purposely restricts her conversations with patients. After seeing a lounge full of lawyers perhaps I know why. There needs to be a way to bring needless law suits to an end. If that happened I think it would help bring about some reduction in health care costs, perhaps even significant.
Of course there is the tough question as to the definition of needless and senseless litigation when it comes to lasting effects from medical care on our family members and ourselves. Of course this would bring into play the need for a closer watch on the eighth commandment as well. After all, I wonder how many physicians have their reputation damaged so that someone can when a law suit and get a golden parachute retirement plan.

Larry has unearthed the heart of the matter. No human system will ever eliminate sin or its effects, and no human system will meet all of our needs perfectly. There will always be tragedies where any system has failed. As Christians, we help the least of His brethren. In the civic realm, our job (and I think this is a matter of philosophy and politics, not exegesis) is to find a system which motivates people to do good on their own. If we trust in the state to do good for us, we will sooner or later find ourselves expressing the cruel cynicism of Ebenezer Scrooge: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

Taking patents away from drug companies is like taking copyrights away from publishers of books or music. It should not be done for many of the same reasons.
I happened to work in the pharmaceutical industry for a while and I can tell you that much of the money for new drugs does come from the company itself. The statement that it is mostly government subsidized is not true. I also happen to know that those who work in drug research are often very ideologically driven people who are motivated to find a cure for a particular disease that they care about – often because a friend or family member has died from it. They do not pick a company based on the pay but on that company’s ability to provide them with the means to reach their goal.
Classifying people who work in pharmaceuticals as those “evil drug companies” is a violation of the eighth commandment. Be careful about which propaganda you promote. It is always easy to disparage the faceless.
By the same token assuming that government is going to be any less greedy than the capitalist system is simply willful ignorance.

Just a brief comment from a European married to an American.
The point is, Reverenc McCain, that the USA will never have universal health care.
I guess it would be technically possible, but it is socially and politically impossible.
You need to remember that when our Social Security systems were created in Western Europe after WWII, there was a national consensus about them in our nations. Where do you find that in America today?
The issue is actually extremely divisive and leads to “debates” that usually produce more heat than light.
Unlike most Europeans, I do not have a problem with that. Americans are a great people, and they know what’s best for them and their children.
On the other hand, this very Conservative European will do everything he can to protect and improve our system and not to let our health fall into the hands of greedy corporations.

Pastor McCain,
It would be great if we could get both sides together on this issue . But, business and government working in the best interest of people is definitely not going to happen and from all known experience should not.
In California, we have a huge cash drain from our hospitals because of the immigration issues and the tremendous drain on public resources to pay for people who do not pay anyway. As a result hospitals are closing because they cannot afford to stay open. This is an example of the Law of Economic Scarcity of Resources at work. There is only so much able to go around.
From a human standpoint I agree with you and would love to see something happen. Something though, is in a perfect world. This problem is probably best solved in the free market which needs to turn back to a special interest that is motivated by its customers and not cash alone. After all business is only possible through consumers. A government solution only results in decline of liberty and excess taxes to pay for something that cannot be funded because of overwhelming wants and needs to be satisfied. I am afraid that we would come to face the Law of Supply and Demand Big Time!
The government needs to turn to its vocation of the sword and not throw money into a bottomless pit (which they are doing anyway).It is the license of government to protect the society from fraud and threats and not to be our “Nanny” or else further abuses will come.
I personally think each employed person should have money that would otherwise be extracted to pay for some taxes and programs be allowed to take what is otherwise wasted on pork and use it to fund care that meets there needs. For those who do not have health care also make a plan available through current state plans already in use and funded through tax dollars. Hospitals are also willing to work a payment plan with you as I came to know through a past hospital stay.There are also county health offices for use.
In a perfect world all of us would never have to pay taxes. But,in this case we might pay a little less.

Your linking of abortion and socialized health care is kind of apples and oranges. Abortion is forbiden by God. The American system of privately funded health care is not. The fact that other industrialized nations embrace socialized medicine does not mean that we should follow them. These other industrialized nations are even more secularized then America. In fact there seems to be a correlation between the social democracy/social market system and rejection of the Christian faith. The fact that Americans prefer liberty to a state managed society provides the soil in which the Gospel takes root. However, if you can get the secular progressives to criminalize abortion I will support their socialized medicine. Not a day before though, I will not support it one day before they support criminalizing abortion.
{{McCain: Gregory, I think you are missing the point of comparison: even as we passionately work for the defense of the life of the unborn, I think we should be as passionately concerned about the life of those who are born and are not receiving sufficient health care. It is a “life” issue, just as much as abortion is. That’s the point. I think your attempt to equate America’s privatized health care system, which clearly is broken and not working well, with the liberty that permits the Gospel to be preached here is truly the apples/oranges comparison.}}

In Australia we have a hybrid system, private health for those who opt for it for whatever reason, for example to choose their own doctor, and socialised health care for the rest and those who simply can’t afford private. It’s not perfect, and I believe we do need to encourage people to be responsible for their own health care when they can afford to do so, so as not to be an unnecessary burden on the public purse, but I would prefer our system over the American system any day. It provides a ‘safety net’, as we call it, especially for the poor and most vulnerable in society, which I believe a wealthy and civilised society such as ours is obligated to provide. Most Australians pay a levy at the rate of 1.5% of taxable income to fund this system. A goods and services tax and consolidated revenue contributes the bulk of funding. Surveys show most Australians are fiercely attached to our system, and resent any government moves to whittle it away. Properly funded and administered, I don’t see why a private/public mix couldn’t serve as a workable and efficient system for any Western democracy.

“In fact there seems to be a correlation between the social democracy/social market system and rejection of the Christian faith.”
Gregory,
You seem to forget that the “social democracy/social economy” model was largely promoted by European believers who based their actions on the Social teachings of their respective churches.
The idea of Social Security is based on Judeo-Christian values. Even Liberals recognize it…
{{{McCain: But Tom, we all know America is the only really Christian nation, founded by Bible-believing Christians. Oh, wait. It isn’t, and it wasn’t. Oh, well. So much for that much-cherished American myth.}}}

This discussion has ranged far afield and has followed several dead ends. (For instance, CEO salaries and drug company profits are a red herring. Fretting about how much money other people make puts us in danger of violating the Ninth Commandment.) Other contributors have adequately answered Pastor McCain’s concerns about the Fifth and Seventh Commandments. Regarding the Fifth, socialized medicine anecdotally claims to help people, but statistically it doesn’t (if it did, then we should be as passionate about it as we are about abortion). Regarding the Seventh, to use the threat of the sword to take money from one group of people and give it to another violates the Seventh Commandment, period. We provide health care for our military and veterans because that is how we repay them for the extraordinary risks they have taken on our behalf.
From a Lutheran perspective, here is the problem with socialized medicine. Socialism, as a system of thought, finds its origin not in Judeo-Christian values, but in the Enlightenment. This was an intellectual movement which (1) denied the doctrine of Original Sin, (2) believed that man was perfectible, and (3) taught that all problems could be solved with human reason. How can a system built on such deeply flawed assumptions possibly produce a desirable result?
{{{McCain: Dr. Surburg, with all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your vocation, I strongly disagree that raising concerns about the extremely high profits made by drug companies, the extent to which they buy off our legislators, and the truly exorbitant salaries made by the senior management of these companies is not a legitimate subject for discussion. It is no red herring at all, but very much part of the problem.
Our country got the robber barons under control in the early 1900s and we need to do it again with health care insurance companies and drug companies. To shut our eyes to these realities is, frankly, profoundly unwise. Luther has quite a lot to say about “sticking it” to people in a free market economy system. Check the Large Catechism. In other words, Rev. Surburg, your analysis if flawed fatally and the assumption that socialism is anti-Christian and capitalism is somehow more Christian, bespeaks a deep confusion of the two kingdoms.
Capitalism is no more rooted in a “Judeo-Christian” ethic than any other economic system. There is certainly not a word in Scripture that we could use to justify capitalism, or democracy. Be careful not to confuse the two kingdoms.
One could argue, as Dr. Lowell Green does very effectively, that Luther was a socialist in his thinking about the state’s responsibility to care for its citizenry. Look at what he said about the Elector of Saxony’s seal, the herb, symbolic of the government’s duty to provide for the physical welfare of the people. That is brought out in the Concordia edition of the BOC, based on the original language of the Lutheran Confessions.
We can have a good debate on these issues, but I believe that the comment that you are here offering is not helpful, but more an attempt to dismiss the concerns and shut down debate. It strikes me that what has been demonstrated quite dramatically in the comments offered here is the incredible extent of American hubris over against every other major industrialized nation on earth. It is, frankly, quite embarrassing to see.
For you to suggest, as you attempt to do, that my concerns have been “adequately answered” is only possible if people choose to ignore a good many comments here raising similar concerns and if you ar willing simply to ignore the comments made by our brothers from other countries. I think you are doing yourself a disservice when you misrepresent the conversation here, like you have.}}}

Depending upon one’s definition of socialize medicine, we have it already in Medicare.