"Why do people choose the substitute over God himself? Probably the most important reason is that it obviates accountability to God. We can meet idols on our own terms because they are our own creations. They are safe, predictable, and controllable; they are, in Jeremiah's colorful language, the 'scarecrows in a cornfield' (10:5). They are portable and completely under the user's control. They offer nothing like the threat of a God who thunders from Sinai and whose providence in this world so often appears to us to be incomprehensible and dangerous . . . [People] need face only themselves. That is the appeal of idolatry."
- David F. Wells
Saturday, December 19, 2009
It looks like the Senate is very close to passing a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system.
Before I launch into this post, a few caveats: I know that salvation does not come through politics or human government, and neither does eternal destruction. I know that, whatever your stance on this issue, as a country we'll probably be OK. I'm not riled up or anything. But I am concerned.
So, what do you think? I am not a supporter of this (at all), mainly because I don't believe (and history is on my side here) our representatives' rosy scenarios and promises regarding the financial and societal impact of the laws they pass, especially laws that are this big.
I'm disgusted with the political horsetrading, threats, bribes (can we call them anything else?) that the leadership in the house and the senate have engaged in to bring along reluctant votes. I understand that compromise has to happen, and there's give and take in politics, but blatant pork-lading (bribes, again) should have no place in our process. I'm not so naive to think these things don't happen. I just wonder why we put up with them.
I also think the Democrats are just out to pass . . . anything, no matter how bad. Because once this is passed, it will never be repealed and can be tweaked and shaped at will.
I also think debt is really, really irresponsible. And our country is swimming in it. This will add lots more.
So, what do you think? Are you excited/hopeful about this coming legislation? Concerned? Those of you who voted for the Democratic party in the last election, are you happy with how things are turning out? Are we heading in a better direction now? Are ther better alternatives? These are not loaded questions . . . I really am interested.
Thoughts in the comments, please.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5711.
Comments on "The Health Care Bill":
2. Milly
- 12/19/2009 10:10 am CST
I am so afraid for our country. I know that I haven’t read this new proposal for health care but I have heard a lot. One thing that I know about the one in Canada is that if you need it now go to America. My sister would be dead under the new health care idea. Okay so she would be dead now if my family had let the hospital that she was in keep calling the shots. But most people don’t have the funds to hire a jet to fly you to a better hospital. Many will die because they can’t afford to go elsewhere or pay for it out of pocket to get better doctors, those who do have nothing to worry about.
As for debt we have been on a path that crosses all parties with no way out but to start digging. That’s what Obama needed to do start fixing the stuff on his desk instead of making new problems.
BTW my BFF is from Canada so I do know from her what the health care is like. It has issues that’s why people come here for help.
Keep praying.
3. Andrew
- 12/19/2009 10:57 am CST
I really don't want to jump into this, but I wanted to respond to this:
Which will take an extreme expansion of the federal governments power under the Interstate Commerce Clause to support this. And once that power is expanded, it will cover nearly everything else the government thinks is best for you to be required to do.
Nearly every power Congress has these days is due to twisting the Interstate Commerce Clause. Getting it to include Health Care is actually a really easy sell, because people routinely get treated in states they don't live in. It will be an even easier sell if the bill allows insurers to sell across state lines - something both Democrats and Republicans support. Basically, anything that isn't 100% localized to a single state is subject to regulation by the Federal Government. It's not a giant expansion or stretch of the Interstate Commerce Clause, because all the expansion and stretching has already been done.
If the bill went to the Supreme Court (still controlled, however narrowly, by conservatives) on the grounds that it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause, it would be upheld, probably unanimously.
And none of what I just said should be taken to mean that I support the bills currently on the table.
4. De
- 12/19/2009 8:12 pm CST
Kim Strassel gets to the heart of why the Democrats are so insistent on passing this unpopular bill:
So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party—the Barney Franks, the David Obeys—are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.
The entitlement crazes of the 1930s and 1960s also caused a backlash, but liberal Democrats know the programs of those periods survived. They are more than happy to sacrifice a few Blue Dogs, a Blanche Lincoln, a Michael Bennet, if they can expand government so that in the long run it benefits the party of government.
5. Evan
- 12/19/2009 8:24 pm CST
Andrew,
You are right that stretching the ICC has already been the source of most Congressional power grabs over the past several decades.
However, I would say this particular expansion of the ICC is something new and far more troublesome. This is not just regulation. It is forced participation - i.e. requiring all US citizens to buy something whether they want it or not. Including, apparently, paying for abortion coverage.
For the record, if this law is fought, I highly doubt this will be an unanimous decision in the Supreme Court, particularly on the forced purchase mandate provision. For one, Justice Thomas will almost certainly vote against it as he always does in ICC cases. In fact, I would think the decision will be a typical 5-4, with Kennedy joining the liberals. But I agree the law, at least most of the major provisions, will be upheld by the Court.
Which will be another step (and a big one) in the creep towards serfdom. For once the freedom to not participate is lost, it will not be regained, and additional things 'for our own good' will be mandated using this precedent.
6. Andrew
- 12/19/2009 9:01 pm CST
I would say this particular expansion of the ICC is something new and far more troublesome. This is not just regulation. It is forced participation - i.e. requiring all US citizens to buy something whether they want it or not. Including, apparently, paying for abortion coverage.
That's a good point. The individual mandate will require some more legal gymnastics than normal.
7. Eloquorius
- 12/20/2009 12:03 pm CST
If we get socialized health care, where will the Canadians go??!?!!?!
@DE (Comment #4): Yup. And those same understandings are why Rush Limbaugh had been calling this the "Democrats in Power Forever Act". When 90+% of the populate relies on the government for their very lives, it will all but permanently seat the socialists in Congress. Even blue dog dems will bend the knee.
8. Bob Sacamento
- 12/21/2009 8:36 am CST
I know that, whatever your stance on this issue, as a country we'll probably be OK.
OK is a relative term. I have a close family member who finds himself under the watchful eye of the vaunted Canadian health system right now. He has been waiting for months now to have a tumor (thankfully, non-malignant) removed, with no end to the wait in sight. If he was in the U.S., from the time he first saw his GP until the time he got the thing taken care of, it would be maybe six weeks tops. And the "Death Panels" rhetoric is overblown, but there will be rationing of care and it will start with the elderly and with pre- and post- natal care. I don't care what anyone says about what's in the bill(s); that's the way western socialized medicine has worked 100% of the time. I could go on. We will be "OK" in that, yes, life will go on. But alot of us will see family members, and our own selves, left to struggle with illnesses that would have been treated as a matter of course in the system we have now.
I also think the Democrats are just out to pass . . . anything, no matter how bad. Because once this is passed, it will never be repealed and can be tweaked and shaped at will.
Amen.
I also think debt is really, really irresponsible. And our country is swimming in it. This will add lots more.
Preach on!
As I close, I hope you can excuse one little tangential parting shot:
I know that salvation does not come through politics or human government, and neither does eternal destruction.
And salvation does not come through bread alone either. So who out there is going to give up eating for the rest of your (very short) life? I doubt that anyone remembers my comments at this site well enough to be bored at hearing me say again: Yes, alot of us Evangelicals went overboard with the culture wars. Yes. Agreed. But that doesn't mean politics and social issues are not Christian concerns. Alot of Evangelicals eat too much (especially the Baptists). That doesn't mean the rest of us have to give up a healthy breakfast. So, I just don't understand why a thoughtful person like Bill has to apologize for being converned about social and political issues. But that's what we've come to, not just on this site but all over the blogosphere. And I don't get it.
9. nhe
- 12/21/2009 10:00 am CST
I'm certainly disappointed with this bill, but I think my reasons are a little different.
I feel the same toward this as I have felt for a long time toward the abortion debate.
In both instances, the two sides just don't talk to each other at all. There is no real effort toward REFORM where REFORM (not overhaul) is needed.
I've always felt that both sides of the abortion debate could come together and agree that we need major adoption reform. Adoption needs to be much more affordable, and, more important, we need to make more people aware of the plight of the orphan and the foster child.
Most of us, other than the extremists on both sides, would agree on this, no matter which side we're on. With adoption more accessible, and more focus on the orphan, there would be less talk of "unwanted" children.
The same is true for health care. Both side can agree that health care should be more affordable, and that we should do our best to take care of people in our spheres of influence.
It just seems like (on both issues) we could have much better resolution if we base policy on what we agree on.
10. Andrew
- 12/21/2009 10:26 am CST
The same is true for health care. Both side can agree that health care should be more affordable, and that we should do our best to take care of people in our spheres of influence.
It just seems like (on both issues) we could have much better resolution if we base policy on what we agree on.
That's a good point. I find that I'm in favor of reform, even major reform. Just, not this reform.
12. Bob Sacamento
- 12/21/2009 10:58 am CST
Adoption needs to be much more affordable ....
But one of the big reasons adoption is not affordable is the shortage of babies available for adoption. This shortage actually makes things easier for girls who can't/don't want to keep their children. So, seriously, I don't think anyone has an abortion because putting a kid up for adoption is too expensive or legally diificult. It's expensive and legally difficult for the potential adopters. And, even then, there is no lack of parents who want to adopt. Supply and demand, as crass as it sounds, works here just like everywhere else.
And one of the reasons there is a shortage of babies to adopt is the prevalence of abortion.
13. nhe
- 12/21/2009 11:44 am CST
Bob - I really strongly disagree......there are plenty of "children's homes" (we don't call them orphanages in the US) and sub-par Foster care situations that suggest other-wise.
"Orphaned children" is not a 3rd world notion at all.
Tangent - we tend to want babies, puppies and kittens to adopt, and not kids, dogs and cats......shame on us. (MHO)
There is not a shortage of babies/kids to adopt at all. Do you have some figures that can back that up?
BTW - I don't want to get away from the thread topic, my intent was simply to say that we would have better legislation if we focused on what we can agree on.
14. Bob Sacamento
- 12/21/2009 12:20 pm CST
There is not a shortage of babies/kids to adopt at all. Do you have some figures that can back that up?
I can't quote you chapter and verse, but I have seen several statistics that show that the number of parents seeking to adopt far outweighs the number of available children in this country. Also, I have personally known two childless couples who wanted to adopt. One couple studied the stats and decided it was hopeless and went with "medical solutions" instead. The other couple went all the way and finally managed to adopt. It was a really heartbreaking story of, first, not being able to find children in the first place, and then having several potential opportunities vanish for one reason or another. And to hear them tell it, their story was not unusual. Parents wanting to adopt infants have mjor trouble finding them.
Children's homes and, especially, foster care, generally take care of children who have grown beyond infancy. There is a big problem finding homes for them. I won't dispute that. And it's a tragedy. And we should find some way to help them. But that won't really impact the abortion issue.
17. De
- 12/21/2009 6:21 pm CST
So, I just don't understand why a thoughtful person like Bill has to apologize for being converned about social and political issues.
Well, I wrote what I wrote because I do believe it (i.e., that politics and current events aren't the ultimate arbiters of good and evil) but, yeah, I also wrote that just to head off any unhelpful tangents on this thread about how I'm engaging in the culture war, or too obsessed with this, or don't care about the poor and uninsured, or whatever.
I've learned I have to do that.
18. Bill
- 12/21/2009 6:22 pm CST
Oh, also, "De" is me. Keep forgetting to change my comment name :-)
Leave a Comment:
The worst thing about this is again Americans are going to again give up a huge measure of freedom again for illusory economic security. And what is even sadder is that the large majority of Americans don't understand why that is and largely don't care.
The passage of this bill not only expands government again, but for the first time will mandate that every American buy something (i.e. health insurance) and subject them to fines and jail time if they don't. Which will take an extreme expansion of the federal governments power under the Interstate Commerce Clause to support this. And once that power is expanded, it will cover nearly everything else the government thinks is best for you to be required to do.
Suffice it to say, combine the health bill with the carbon schemes pending (along with the abortion and population control advocates), and I believe almost all economic freedom will be gone with a generation, which will then be shortly followed by the loss of all other freedoms, including reproductive freedom.
I think C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man" gives a pretty accurate description of what is likely to happen.