[Scroll down for the update.]
There are many arguments against universal (national, or socialist, or single-payer, depending on who you ask) healthcare. There are statistics upon metrics upon studies upon pie charts that illustrate that the healthcare problems in in the US are not a serious ones. But I’m going to leave all those cold hard facts alone for the moment and just ask this question of those who propose it.
Just what exactly entitles you to enjoy someone else’s work product for free?
Is it in the Constitution? The bible? Federal law? The Unabomber’s Manifesto? Some UN document? Where did you get such a ridiculous idea to begin with? And by free, I mean at no direct cost to you, because someone, somewhere, pays. If not you, then the provider takes a loss, or the taxpayer pays it on your behalf. HEALTHCARE IS NEVER FREE. Like every other product or service, there are costs involved and somebody pays.
Are you entitled to walk into the Mercedes dealership and get what you need because your old car is in the shop for the fifteenth time? Can you just take food from the grocery store without paying when you are hungry and have no money? How is healthcare different? You have to eat in order to live… and yet no one questions our food-delivery system or calls it unfair. Some people can afford steak, others eat hamburger, and still others subsist on cans of Spam received from the local food bank.
I have never read in the bible that the government is responsible to care for the poor and the sick. On the contrary, Christians are called to do it. Does this mean I think we should have no government programs? No, it does not. I’m on record stating that I think we should have a welfare system, and I’ve proposed changes that would make it better than it was when I was on welfare myself. But government programs, although called “entitlements” really aren’t. They’re not mandatory, not in the Declaration or the Constitution, and they’re not rights. These are simply things we choose, as a nation, to do. We can continue them for as long as we collectively agree that they are a good and beneficial use of our tax dollars. There is no “right to healthcare” in the writings of our Founding Fathers or in the bible.
We already have a national system of healthcare. We pay for what we want/need, either directly or via an insurance company which shares our risk of expenditure. Emergency care is available in every ER in the country – by law. You don’t have to pay in advance. Those lacking funds or insurance with chronic problems can utilize the charity and university hospitals in every city. For those who can demonstrate a chronic, genuine financial need, Medicaid and Medicare are available. A minimum amount of care is available to all, money or no. That is due to the generosity of the American public.
Is it a perfect system? No. The perfect system does not exist. There will always be anecdotes about people who have fallen through the cracks – in every system, as these videos illustrate. What makes more sense? To change a system which is working perfectly well for the vast majority of Americans into something which is proven not to work everywhere else it has been tried? Or to find other ways to help those who fall through the cracks?
We need to abolish this “entitlement” attitude. The truth is that if you’re not paying for it yourself, then you are living by the sufferance of others. I have done so, and the ingratitude of most people I met on welfare was simply shocking – as was their contentment with the status quo. This “entitlement” attitude is neither American nor Christian, and we need to stomp on it hard wherever it rears its ugly head.
Update:
THIS is exactly what I was talking about – a snip from a Jon Henke post at Q and O:
Some people, like the Straphangers Campaign, a riders’ advocacy group, worry that passengers will ultimately have to bear the cost.
Oh, the horror! People might have to bear the expense for services they use!!
Hello.
To give some context: I’m a Christian working in the National Health Service in the UK.
To answer your question in bold: nothing – but fortunately, grace abounds. I would therefore suggest that the Bible may come into the answer. Whilst not in any way a Christian entity, the NHS was founded on Christian principles and often demonstrates them. The NHS is also a fault-ridden system that doesn’t work perfectly. But if the NHS didn’t exist in the UK, it would be necessary to invent it; it didn’t exist, and so it was invented in 1948. It’s paid for by National Insurance, contributed by everyone who pays taxes. Everyone is covered – even those who don’t pay taxes – but some choose to have private healthcare insurance. Interestingly, the increase in wealth in the UK over the last ten years is not matched by an increase in the use of private healthcare, but is matched by an increase in cosmetic surgery. That may say more about us Brits than healthcare, but there we go…
The NHS is the story of the Good Samaritan writ large. Margaret Thatcher famously said that “No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good intentions – he had money, too” and in an annoying way she was right. But Oliver Wendell Holmes said (there are many variations available but I prefer this one) “I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization”. OWH recognised that he was paying for the Good Samaritan. Are you just hung up on the word “entitlements”? And why be so worried if things don’t appear in the writings of your Founding Fathers or the Bible?
You could also ask:
Just what exactly entitles you to enjoy someone else’s
work productforgiveness for free?Nothing – but fortunately, grace abounds. Mercedes dealerships and grocery stores could be graceful if they wanted to, but it is the nature (and indeed the duty) of all companies to care for themselves and their owners more than the customer. Your Constitution and Declaration of Independence wisely have an inherent mistrust of “big government” (specifically our 18th century one!). The contentious issue for healthcare is this: is government better than a private company at distributing healthcare based on need? In my situation, in my country, I would say that it is. It will be different for you and your country. Such political situations are often not transferable from one country to another. But don’t confuse the abuse of a system and the gracelessness of some of its users with the intentions and principles of that system.
God bless!
Dom.
Dom, thanks for your comment. I’m not worried about the source of the idea, but I’m perplexed why people somehow got the idea that healthcare is a basic human right. Then they act as if, having declared it so, it is somehow without cost. That’s ridiculous. If healthcare is a right because your life depends on it, then how much more should food be a right? Yet no one questions or complains about grocery stores making a profit. Why the difference?
Grace and forgiveness are the province of the Lord and of Christians, not the government. The government is not, nor should it be, the Good Samaritan. The fact is that the person (or entity) with the money makes the rules. With national healthcare, you are literally putting your life into the hands of a bureaucrat. I find that totally unacceptable.
At least in the UK, you have the choice of private health insurance! In Canada, people die regularly because they can’t get treatment from the government and it is illegal to pay for your own treatment. You sound satisfied with the NHS. Doesn’t this bother you at all? (And this is from a very positive news story that notes huge improvements!)
Worse, this article from a year earlier shows that wait times are sometimes deliberately imposed in order for the government to save money:
The longest I have ever had to wait to see a doctor for a non-emergency was one and a half days. I called in on a Monday afternoon, and there were no appointments for Monday or Tuesday, so I had to wait until Wednesday morning. Next-day non-emergency care is typical; same-day if you call early enough in the morning. Emergency care is available to everyone, by law, regardless of their ability to pay. The idea that some government functionary would have the ability to deny me the opportunity to bring my daughter in to the pediatrician for non-emergency problems like an earache or a sore throat for MONTHS is completely unacceptable. If Americans knew the truth about the wait times, they would reject nationalized health care out of hand. Nationalized health care is rationed health care. If health care is such a human right, why permit it to be rationed?
I am completely perplexed by the attitude of so many proponents of national healthcare that it is somehow immoral to want to make a profit. The bible is very much in favor of sound business practices and making a profit. The fact is that for-profit businesses, with appropriate regulation, deliver products faster and better than government ever thought of doing. This is true for healthcare as well as everything else.
And this is insane – why do you put up with it? –
More than three out of four are admitted within THREE MONTHS of referral? Here, if you need to go to the hospital, you’re in the same day or the next day. Waiting two weeks for a cancer specialist? My husband was seen THE SAME DAY, and had surgery for it THE NEXT DAY. Waiting up to two weeks with chest pain? Oh my gosh… that’s simply unbelievable. If you’re satisfied, it’s because your standards are far too low.
Hello again.
I deliberately didn’t give examples of failing healthcare on either side of the Atlantic because, as I said, a lot of political situations are non-transferable and such trading of individual examples could be pointless: all I’d need to do to set off such a game of political tennis – recalling incidents and using the word “insane” – is to say “guns”.
But you pushed my button, so: how come the US spends more than the UK on healthcare per citizen and yet the US performs worse than the UK on basic health indicators such as life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, and the number of hospital beds per capita? (WHO figures) As a country you pay more and you don’t live as long. Isn’t that just a wee bit strange? Might it be because some people aren’t being cared for and so they die earlier? Might it be that the treatment is there and quick PROVIDED that you can afford it? America spends more than anyone else – why isn’t it top of the league?
“Grace and forgiveness are the province of the Lord and of Christians, not the government.”
What – no-one else can be graceful? Besides – are you seriously suggesting that if you’re not a Christian you can’t forgive? Are only Christian US Presidents allowed to issue pardons? Or is every act of grace and forgiveness from God? If so, then why can’t governments act with grace?
“The fact is that for-profit businesses, with appropriate regulation, deliver products faster and better than government ever thought of doing. This is true for healthcare as well as everything else.”
I’m not convinced of that either. It depends on the government. In 1945 the UK elected a government with a landslide, on the strength of its healthcare reforms. As for everything else – how about the military?
“I am completely perplexed by the attitude of so many proponents of national healthcare that it is somehow immoral to want to make a profit.”
I never said it was immoral to make a profit. I simply said that it is the primary motive – the LEGAL primary motive – of a company. Care has to come second. Many – not enough – in the NHS think of it as a vocation and providing a service to others, and consider this before their own profit.
“The bible is very much in favor of sound business practices and making a profit.”
The Bible is also very much in favour of supporting the poor and oppressed, and seeing that they are cared for – far more so than it cares about profit.
Laura, we’re not going to agree on this. That’s fine. I am always keen to examine the differences between our countries and I’m looking forward to visiting the US again later this year for Thanksgiving. I saw your Independence Day post and it reminded me of many things that I too love about America – a 231-year-old bold and daring political idea that plays out daily across the world. I wish we had a constitution, for starters… ours is all in people’s heads and spread over hundreds of laws, so it doesn’t really exist. And having a monarchy in the 21st century doesn’t make any sense… but anyway, like you, and many others around the globe, I am convinced I’m in the best country too. That’s democracy for you!
God bless you and God bless America.
Dom.
Dom, other nations spend less because health care is rationed. They’ve deliberately reduced spending regardless of the human cost by imposing wait times when necessary. That was the point of the articles I linked, and that skews the statistics. Another issue that skews the statistics is that Americans are also providing health care for around 20 million non-citizens – illegal immigrants from the south and medical tourists from the north.
The life expectancy differences between our two countries are about one year, and that’s with us carrying 15-20 million people from third world countries who are bringing in drug-resistant TB, advanced Hansen’s Disease and all kinds of things we never used to have to deal with. How many of those, proportionately, does the UK carry from Pakistan and other third world countries you receive immigrants from? Is it comparable?
And yes, of course others can forgive, and governments can pardon, etc… my point is that it is not the JOB of government to do so. Our government exists to do the will of taxpayers in the most efficient possible way; to provide services (like the military) that private industry cannot do. The ideal in America is to separate religion from government as much as possible, and in my opinion that’s good. The major decline of the American church began back in the 60s when our welfare system began doing work the church used to do. Churches stepped back and stopped doing ministry at the level they used to because government was doing it. Now thanks to President Bush we have government grants to churches – funds of nonbelievers doing the work of the church in the church!! So believers have to give less to accomplish the same work, and the government has gained a certain amount of control over church spending and by extension, the ministry that gets done. The government takeover of ministry is incredibly harmful to Christians and to the church. When our consciences are not provoked, when we stop giving sacrificially, we lose opportunities to grow in our own faith and to show the gospel to others. This is best done on the local level.
I’m sorry you felt provoked by my choice of word. It was not intentional. But look at it from the point of view of someone in a system who doesn’t have to wait more than a day or so; from the perspective of over 250 million Americans who can get what they need when they need it. As the video I linked above illustrates, we’re talking about fewer than ten million people with limited access to health care. Should the 250 million lose what we have for the sake of the ten so that everybody can suffer together in a Canadian-style plan (which is what is proposed by Hillary Clinton)? That may bring equality but I don’t call it an improvement to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. On the contrary, now is the time for Christians to take care of the 8-10 million. Whether by educating them about the health care options that are available already or by having church member staffed and run clinics – and the malpractice insurance would be the greatest expense – there’s a lot we could do to help.
Right now we’re being dazzled by the word “free.” But the truth is it’s not free, it’s our tax dollars. We’ll be paying more to wait longer. Yes, there may be an occasional government who can do a good job, as in your 1945 example… but that’s not something on which I want to bet my family’s health care. We haven’t had good government since the 80s, and half of that was spent undoing the mess Carter left. Faster treatment is available to those with private insurance – my experiences on Medicaid and my experience in charity/university hospitals have not been as pleasant. Even so, I never had to wait months or even weeks.
I do appreciate the fact that others love their country as much as I love mine. And if I couldn’t be in the US, I’d pick the UK every time. There is much to admire about it. But even though your NHS looks like a vast improvement on Canada’s system, even if I were back on Medicaid or had to again rely on charity care, I wouldn’t trade our medical system.
Precedent, we all enjoy a number of vital services, civil defense, law enforcement, fire fighting, transportation subsidies in the form of public roads, public education and civil works of all sorts from the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Hoover Dam.
Contrary to the popular rhetoric, there is no great ideological battle going on with this issue. It’s simply a matter of how much subsidy we, as the tax paying public, are willing to provide to an industry. We do this with dozens of other services provided by dozens of other industries.
To answer your question more directly, I don’t know exactly what entitles citizens to the work products of soldiers, police, health inspectors and teachers but something apparently does. Why can that same thing not apply to doctors, nurses and paramedics?
You make a good point, but there are some things that government is better suited for than private industry. The police, health inspectors and jobs like that are industries that serve the public as a whole where workers need to be unbiased. In the case of roads and civil works, again, the products serve the public as a whole so it makes sense to have that government-managed. No one thinks of these things as “free” – people understand that their tax dollars are at stake every time they vote for or against a millage.
Health care is a person to person service; only one patient is treated at a time. It’s more like an airline – a “public carrier” but providing services on an individual basis to those who request it. Where health care is concerned, the popular rhetoric is that it “should be free” because it’s a “basic human right.” I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read those phrases in the last six months. Yet it’s not a basic human right (except perhaps according to the UN which is a joke) and it isn’t free, EVER – it’s a service that costs money to provide. We talk often about the costs of the military, especially lately, but where health care is concerned, no one seems willing to admit that nationalized health care is rationed. The very word creeps me out, but how else can you describe it when government reduces the services because of the cost?
It’s the anecdotes that have people in an uproar – we hear a sad personal story and we empathize and want to fix it. But the fix for anecdotal problems is not to throw out the system which by and large does work well. It’s to tighten up the safety net.
I don’t want to subsidize anything – I’d like to see a stop put to ALL corporate welfare. No loopholes for anything. Everybody pays the same rate – and if you are under the poverty line, pay nothing. Sure, it’d put a lot of civil servants in the unemployment line, but I call that progress.