WHY ARE CHRISTIANS AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE?

UPDATE: This column is an excerpt of A RESPONSE to a writer on psychologytoday.com. His article is linked in the very next paragraph. People are apparently reading this thinking that I am the person confused about why Christians would reject universal health care. This column is my answer to the confused person. If this confuses you, why don't you just go to my full response now. (This means you, skeeter.)

This column is an excerpt of my response to this article where the author expresses a sincere desire to know why Christians tend to be against universal health care. The full reply is quite lengthy. It is too long for this site so I posted an excerpt here and then linked to the full text for your further reading. You may comment on it here or where the full article resides.

------------- The excerpt begins ----------------

Let us begin by exploring the premise of the man’s argument:

"Isn’t the greatest of virtues love? Isnt that right in the Bible? What is getting lost in the translation from what Christianity should be and is, and what it has become?"

Here we see the hubris on display in vivid colors. Now, we’ve already agreed at this point that ‘born-again, evangelical Christians’ are the most opposed to universal health care. Does it strike anyone else as a little odd that this fellah, who is not a Christian, thinks he’s in a better position than Christians themselves to understand what Christianity should be and contrast it with what it has become?

Let me submit to Mr. Heflick that it is an unwarranted assumption to believe that he will have the same understanding of the word ‘love’ as how it is portrayed in the Bible. I find this to be a common difficulty regarding ‘love.’ No one bothers to define it and systematically understand it because everyone thinks they know everything about it instinctively. I include fellow Christians in that.

The net result of this approach when we turn to the Bible is that we insert our ‘instinctive’ meaning of the word ‘love’ wherever we see it, never considering that perhaps the Bible embodies a different meaning.

This comes to play when we consider another statement by the gent:

The more clear Christian response, from my understanding, should be to whole heartedly endorse anything that helps their fellow man lead a life of less suffering

So, apparently ‘love’ is about doing anything to help their fellow man suffer less. Based on this premise, Mr. Heflick makes the interesting and logically fallacious inference that if we reject universal health care we must simultaneously not want to help our fellow man. In short, in order to meet Mr. Heflick’s standard of ‘love’ we’ve got to ‘love’ in the particular manner that Mr. Heflick prescribes, and this apparently is only by implementing universal health care.

The idea that there may be other ways to ease suffering does not appear to cross his mind. I will not here counter the unfounded reduction of ‘love’ to simply easing people’s suffering. I think it can be said that it is at least that but it is certainly more. For a simple example, at its heart we can say that orthodox Christianity certainly does aim to spare people from suffering- especially the eternal and everlasting sort.

But this leads to a very important point that helps us to finally segue into the myriad of reasons for why I reject universal health care and health insurance. Mr. Heflick says, “There are about a zillion verses in the Bible saying we should help the poor, show compassion, be loving…”

But there are other verses, too. For example, Jesus said, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39). Suffering- even to the point of death- seems to be anticipated in this passage. He also said, “It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matt 5:29).

These passages and others like them do not justify ambivalence to the human condition but they help illustrate that easing temporal sufferings is not the whole sum of what Christian love will be all about.

Finish reading this article

Anthony Horvath is the Executive Director of Athanatos Christian Ministries and the author of the Birth Pangs series.

Email this to a friend

Print HTML

Post A Comment

Comments

10 comments for this article

Reverse Comment Order

Added: April 06, 2010. 08:04 PM CST

I can think of a hundred other cases beyond national defense where the government provides useful services.

Governments maintain not only America's interests abroad, but also civil peace at home. Government is the system of courts that administer a high quality of justice. Government is the local police department and health department and the elected supervisors who administer the affairs of the town. We own property, but our water and sewer service is municipally administered, and provides the miracle of clean, hot and cold running water extremely reliably at a very reasonable price.

On the federal side, the FDIC is an insurer of last resort for deposits in the private banking system, set up under FDR, and without it, we would have lost a bunch of money this year. The Mine Safety Administration regulates mine owners and tries to ensure that the pursuit of profit does not waste lives unnecessarily. Government is the EPA, protecting the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, making sure that the toys I buy for my children are made without using cheap but dangerous or poisonous materials.

None of these agencies are perfect, but having them is better than not having them. They were each established precisely because negative externalities were being created that markets could not deal with.

What in any of these things should I resent or view as a threat to me or my family? You can call me naive if you want to, but I just don't see it.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: April 06, 2010. 02:36 PM CST

To Zander:

"Why, then, would it make you happy to "get off the grid"? Would your life not be notably harder if you did? You are free in any case to head into the wilderness if you wish; the fact that you don't suggests that government does indeed offer you real benefits."

That is a false choice and doesn't make sense at any rate. :) Just because I don't go off grid doesn't mean that I am happy for government services. There are many other compelling reasons one might stay 'on grid.' Being around people, for example. :) I can think of nothing that government gives me that couldn't be produced by private parties with one exception: national defense.

Second of all, I would welcome the hard work. You don't understand me at all. Going off grid and failing is not my idea of a good plan. Succeeding means saving up for a good property and the numerous other things we'd have to have in place to increase the odds of success.

I am not 'on grid' because of some need to suck the teet of the government. In point of fact, the number one reason why we aren't off grid has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with medical care (granted, even that has now been nationalized...), for you see, my daughter has a birth defect requiring access to high quality medical services. I am not an idiot. I am not a sentimentalist who thinks he can just pursue a whim that feels good but ends up poorly and risks the welfare of my child- this child in particular. That's irresponsible. I am neither dumb nor irresponsible.

We'll get 'off grid' as soon as I am able but when we do I will do my best to ensure that we do not put the life of our child at risk. If anything, the government is making this much more difficult... I have already had to walk away from prospective properties because local governments had their fingers all over them with restrictions.

I guess you could say that the government is my problem even here.

Anthony

Alert a moderator

Added: March 29, 2010. 05:57 AM CST

I'm married to a libertarian, so I'm not going to immediately discount libertarian arguments.

Governments make mistakes not because they are governments, but because they are people. I would be a foolish Democrat if I argued that they never made mistakes. All I argue is that having a system in place so that I don't have to personally employ a taster to ensure that my food is not poisoned, as Roman nobility did, is more efficient even if the system sometimes makes mistakes.

Why, then, would it make you happy to "get off the grid"? Would your life not be notably harder if you did? You are free in any case to head into the wilderness if you wish; the fact that you don't suggests that government does indeed offer you real benefits.

Democratic government is simply a mechanism for individuals to take actions along the lines of the aggregated preferences of the individuals in a country, limited in our case by the US Constitution. It is not inherently an evil or a problem, until people make it so, just as private enterprise is not inherently an evil or a problem until people make it so.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: March 27, 2010. 08:08 PM CST

oh, zander

First of all, Zander, I would be happy to get off the grid entirely. I cannot help the fact that I was born into this environment. It's just a little silly to try to hold people to that standard as though it discredits their position. I also don't think that it is necessary that the government be involved in making roads and giving me electricity, but I'm not going to set off across the countryside in protest. This is just an immature line of reasoning.

Now, from that you will gather that I would be just happy if the government stopped regulating the food that is available in grocery stores. In the first place, they do a crappy job of it. I can't help but chuckle, though I know I shouldn't, over the massive food recall not too long ago that recalled the WRONG item, tomatos from Florida, iirc, and it ended up being something else, utterly devastating an entire market.

We need to wean ourselves off of dependency on the government, and I use the word 'wean' on purpose. We couldn't do it cold turkey, if only because half our population would wander around in circles if it didn't have this government agency or that to hold their hands. But at the same time, that is not an argument to double down.

Moreover, I think you miss EB's point, which draws from my post where I make the argument that all the arguments for universal health care apply equally to universal food distribution.

So, to complete the analogy, there is already regulation of food- so too, of health. The arguments for universalizing it apply also to food. So why not go whole hog?

That's what EB is getting at.

But really, Zander. You shouldn't confuse the fact that we conservatives are stuck with a situation that we really would like to have no part of as some sort of argument that we are 'for' those things.

I have a strong libertarian streak to me, so I wouldn't try this line of reasoning on me. You'll find that whatever you imply that I'm happily enduring... I'm probably not, and in fact actively trying to extract myself from. Now if only we could get the government to stop adding things I need to extract myself from...

Anthony Horvath

Alert a moderator

Added: March 26, 2010. 02:47 PM CST

End Bringer,

Does this mean that you refuse to buy any food from grocery stores, whose safety is regulated by the federal government? Are you off the grid entirely, eating only what you hunt and grow, or do you actually benefit from regulatory steps the government has taken every time you sit down to a meal?

Just asking!

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: March 25, 2010. 04:37 PM CST

OK, I can assume....

I can indeed assume the health care reform is good and will lead to good things. I would still reject it. Because I can also assume the Government can regulate what we eat and drink from the grocery store. I can assume that they will only allow us to buy "healthy" things and eating such will lead to good long lives. I can assume enslavement can be beneficial. That's all dangerously foolish assumptions that history has taught us will lead to bloodshed everytime. And I would still want death.

End Bringer

Alert a moderator

Added: March 24, 2010. 04:53 PM CST

Let's assume it's good

Let us assume that the health care reform package is good.
I think we can also safely assume that if every child went to church or another religious service weekly then that we be a good things. The result would probably be less crime, drug abuse, and less vandalism. Law enforcement costs would be lower.
We have 2 good things here. Things that have good, beneficial effects in society.
And it is governments right to do good things, right?
So to the people against health care reform, too bad this is a good thing, it will be good for us as a whole. You may not want to have to participate or fund it, but we have to think about everyone.
And while we are doing good things, then to benefit society, all minor children have to go to church. What, you're not religious, you don't believe in God? Well, we have to think about the good of our society. There are many thousands of deaths from gangs and drug use and such. If all children had to go to church we would save lives. So for the collective good they all have to go. And of course there will only be acceptable religious plans. And it would not be fair to make these people go to these religious events if they were underfunded. So you will have to pay to support this government program that is for the benefit of us all.

If one is okay for the government to mandate, then other is okay also.
So it boils down to this, People have rights to decline to participate in either of these.

Anonymous

Alert a moderator

Added: March 24, 2010. 03:42 PM CST

I hope you are talking about

I hope you are addressing your statement to Mr. Heflick, to whom this article is a portion of a RESPONSE to.

Please note the opening paragraph:

"In response to this article alleging a sincere desire to know why Christians are against universal health care I have composed a lengthy reply."

You are reading the reply. If you read on to the full text, you will see that I make explicitly clear the freely generous nature of Christian love.

Thanks.

Anthony Horvath

Alert a moderator

Added: March 24, 2010. 02:33 PM CST

Love?

Love under the threat of force (fine or imprisonment) is not love. God wants us to give willingly. Just as we did with Haiti. Quite frankly, sir, you viewpoint of Christianity is quite immature.

blackconservative

Alert a moderator