I like this piece except for “President Obama, who I believe is a Christian.” Nothing in his life or political career gives any evidence of a man who believes in true, Biblical Christianity. I see a man who worships political power, not God.

And that's one of the problems with a lot of modern Christians, who have gotten away from Biblical Christianity and have bought into the lie that political power will enable the Christian to make the world a better place, rather than the power of God.

I now see a Healthcare reform bill that only reforms how much we will be taxed and penalized for not doing things the government's way. As I see it, these small businesses who are mandated to proved group health insurance will either fire people until they can afford it, or close their doors altogether because they can't, rather than pay these ridiculous confiscatory penalties. That makes more people unemployed, and as that happens, the nanny state will perceive further “need” for their intervention, ushering in the public option, continuing this vicious cycle of tax and spend, tax and spend.

I think it's all moot anyway, because I believe the lawsuit from the State Attorneys General will go before SCOTUS and it will be declared unconstituional.

I like this piece except for “President Obama, who I believe is a Christian.” Nothing in his life or political career gives any evidence of a man who believes in true, Biblical Christianity. I see a man who worships political power, not God.

Well I reckon since neither of us really knows him, neither of us is fit to judge (of course even if we knew him, neither of us would be fit to judge either). I think politics has the power to corrupt any Christian isn't already corrupt (see what I did there?).

Regarding the HCR bill, are you truly surprised that our gov't has come up with yet another thing to penalize us for not doing their way? I'm not. Like I said, we can't do it right. Of course, we never did. Either you're right about small businesses closing up shop or you're wrong. I won't claim to know. I don't know enough about economics or what the bill will actually force small businesses to do. I'd be glad of any resources you cant point me in the direction of so I don't have to take your word for it though. Unless you're just guessin'.

I really doubt this will be declared un-Constitutional since there have been so many things that have happened in the last 20 years that should have been but weren't, but you never know.

Glad you liked the post!

“We live in a country where we spend the most per capita but our life expectancy ranks 27th.”

For what it is worth this doesn't mean anything. Anybody you find trumpeting this as significant is lying to you and you should distrust them either as a statistical incompetent or unprincipled liar.

Life expectancy figures include _everything_. People who die in accidents and are murdered are factored into life expectancy figures but these obviously have zero to do with healthcare in a country.

Additionally Americans tend to be more over weight and have other risk factors that reduce life expectancy, that again have zero to do with the quality of healthcare.

You are comparing apples and oranges when you try to claim that life expectancy and healthcare quality are related.

Be wary of whoever made this claim to you as if it was actually a relevant statistic.

The sort of statistic that is actually significant is things like 5 year survival rates from cancer and things like that. Of course, those sort of statistics aren't quoted because they put the lie to the statistic you cited.

Jason

Yes, life expectancy includes everything, but one would think that the amount we spend on health care includes treating people injured in accidents. I hardly think that comparing how much we spend per person on health care to how long we can expect to live is hardly apples and oranges. There is a significant difference between how long someone in this country will live and how long someone in countries with varying degrees of socialized medicine will live, and to the good. If that's because we're fatter, more violent, and more accident prone, well that hardly speaks well of our attitude towards health or how much money we've spent on educating people on those very issues.

But let's assume for a moment, you're right. Let's assume that how much we spend on health care is completely unrelated to our average life spans. I want to hear why we, again the country who spends more per capita on health care, have to have medical missionaries help our countrymen with basic medical necessities and why, at least in this one instance, the group I mentioned was almost unable to provide those services due to a lack of funds?

Do you think we have the greatest health care system in the world? If so, why? Do you think that everyone in this country has access to the care they need? I can assure you that they don't. Do you think we as individuals and as a body of believers have done everything we can and should do, that we've been called to do? We haven't. And don't you think that if we did, things would certainly be better than they are? They would.

That was the point I was trying to make.

All i'm saying is that life expectancy includes far to much noise in the value to claim it tells you anything about the quality of healthcare in a country. They are what are called in statistics “unattached figures”. They sound like they are relevant but they really are not. You should read the short work “How to Lie with Statistics”, it will teach you a lot about what to look for when people start claiming this and that and using statistics to prove it. You should be more skeptical and less trusting.

I never claimed the Us health system was perfect, I wouldn't I think it has plenty of faults, but this abomination of a bill will make things worse not better.

Do I think everybody has access to the care they need ? What does that even mean ? On what grounds do you determine what is necessary and “needed” and what is not ? Surely that is up to each individual to decide for themselves not have a one size fits all solution declared from on high by their “betters” ?

I'm not sure how you can even call it a good thing to intrench in law the idea that someone has as a right, the ability to _demand_ that someone else pay for something that they decide they need. That is tyranny.

LOL, I think I'm exactly as skeptical as I want to be. Perhaps not as skeptical as you'd like me to be, but I have to live in my own skin.

Perhaps, while we're passing out advice here, I'll give you a little. I wouldn't call something an abomination or tyrannical without knowing what those words mean. We don't have a tyranny here. And the bill is no more an “abomination” than the Patriot Act. You may not like either bill, I don't know, but please try and avoid unnecessary hyperbole.

As far as people having what they need, I hardly think that's a revolutionary concept. Yes we would, as a country, need to determine the basic necessities. As a start, I think that we can say that every person in this country should have access to regular physical examinations and should be able to receive care for common ailments provided them by a doctor. If they can pay, they should pay. If they can't they should receive it anyway. Can they get that in the emergency room? Some of that and some people, sure. Is that what an ER is for? No. That's a stop gap measure, not a solution. It's about access, not about requiring those sorts of things like you were in the military. If someone has access and elects not to use it that's their choice.

And no I don't think that the individual should have the right to decide that whatever they need is what they need. That's not the way the current bill works and I don't think that's the way it works in any country I'm aware of.

So, in closing, if you chose to respond to this post let's dial the rhetoric back just a little and try and have a conversation.

You should be more skeptical of statistics than you are though as they are frequently used to deceived, such as this “life expectancy” figure that is claimed to be some sort of meaningful proxy for the quality of healthcare when it simply isn't. I would still recommend the book though, it was written in 1966 but is still as relevant today as ever and it is a short and easy read along with being extremely illuminating.

Hang on a sec though. People can already turn up to any hospital and they are required by law to treat them,and frequently such persons will walk away afterwards without paying at all. So access is actually not unavailable.

As for deciding what counts as a basic necessity, could you outline the principles you would use to determine what is in and what is out? It isn't as simple as you think. It actually turns out to be really complex however you decide to draw the line and keep in mind that however you decide to draw the line some lawyer will come along and seek to get something included as a “basic necessity” that isn't. But lets see what you can come up with. If people were paying for their own care, or relying on the charity of others if they couldn't afford their own care, then there is a natural brake on what they will do and they are free to decide as they want. When someone else is picking up the tab though, the sky is the limit, or at least trying for it is as they have nothing to lose.

The problem is that you seem to ignore the TANSTAAFL principle when it comes to working out these sorts of things and it leads to disaster.

So who rightly should decide what the basic needs of an individual is exactly? Should the “experts” in government decide what is enough for them ? That is tyranny and is not rhetoric. If they pay for it themselves then they can make whatever decision works for them. the line needs to be drawn by someone, and it will be by whoever picks up the tab and when it comes to a question of health care, that is a pretty serious form of control to have over a person.

As for calling the bill an abomination, I don't think that is unreasonable. The thing is horrible, with kick backs and bribes salted through it, and nobody even knows what the effects of this 2000 page monstrosity will ultimately be. Legislation like this shouldn't be allowed to be voted on. To my mind any legislation that doesn't fit on a single a4 page is to long and should have to be broken into separate pieces so that things are properly transparent.

Ont eh upside at least Obama has proven to be the uniter he claimed to be, even if he has done so by uniting the majority of the country against him.

I love the notion of people doing the right thing rather than expecting anyone, including government (secular or theocratic), to make or enforce the decision for them. I try to encourage others to do the same.

Bravo. I agree with the point of this post, despite a few particulars that have been pointed out already. Great message. I went for a similar angle with my blog post on gratitude.

Just from personal experience within my own family, I know that even basic healthcare is not easily available to all. My younger sister had a serious medical condition that threatened her life because it was not treated early enough. Part of the reason is that she lives in an area that cannot “support” a doctor's office. I might add that my sister does not drive which complicates the situation, but her story is not unique.

I do not know what the health care reform bill will or will not do for this country. I have not read it nor will I, but I really don't care if it means that ALL have access to decent medical treatment whether they choose to use it or can or cannot pay for it. Does that mean that I favor socialized medicine? I guess it does. Ideally, we should be able to take care of our own, especially within the Christian community, but we do not and so someone must. For good or ill, that responsibility has devolved to the government which leads us to the whole issue of socialized medicine. I do not like it, but unless we are willing to take care of each other voluntarily, then we must be coerced (although that may be too strong a term) to do so. I do not believe that the government does many things well, but let's face it, somebody has to do something.

I do not think that there are any simple solutions to the healthcare problems we face. I am also convinced that there are no solutions that will please all. At best we may please a simple majority (but that is not even always certain.) I do not participate in the political process because of theological convictions, but for those who do, if you don't like the solution, work to change it. For me, if the health care reform means that my sister and thousands upon thousands like her receive good basic health care then the reform bill is a good first step.

Thanks Rob!

I have been an evangelical Christian for over 40 years. This has led to much confusion amongst friends and not so friendlies who confuse evangelical with fundamentalist and many other things so I am familiar with confusion over terms. I have attended a conservative Christian college and Duke Divinity School so my exposure to various strains of Christianity while not exhaustive is great, but I must admit that I am confused by what you mean by true, Bibilical Christianity. Just wondering. I agree btw that modern Christians, including many conservative Christians, often mistake political activity with their duties as Christians. I would say that most politicians, especially at the national level, don't so much worship power as want to use it to their own benefit, which really isn't wrong, politically, if they also promote the common weal.

If you are involved in a local church that is trying to deal with issues in your community, you are truly blessed! Would that more churches would wake up to the needs of those around us in our own neighborhoods.

Won't address the Obama thing, but Will Rogers once said, “There are liars, there are damned liars, and then there are statistics.” I also wish that life was so simple we could write laws on one sheet of paper, but it seems to me that the preambles to most laws take up much more than one sheet of paper. Our representatives may make issues more complicated than they need to be, but many of the issues they deal with are complex because if they weren't they would be taken care of at the local level, which tends to be much simpler in process and verbiage.

I'm not sure this is true about legislation. If the government didn't insist on sticking its nose into things it doesn't can can't understand perhaps the need for such complex legislation would be removed.

We live in a nation of 300 million + people with environments that range from tropical to frozen tundra, The racial composition of the nation is exceedingly diverse with an extreme range of socio-economic classes (for lack of better term.) We are a nation with a wide range of political and theological thought and the moral and ethical implications drawn from those presuppositions. We have major metroplexes and areas (like Wyoming) where the population density is only about 7 persons per square mile.The federal government is ultimately responsible for the welfare of this extremely complex milieu.

I still contend that if the problems are amenable to simple solutions, those solutions are usually handled by the local governments because they ARE simple problems. When the questions involved exceed the expertise and/or financial resources of local government, the next layer of government up tends to be asked to deal with the problem and the more difficult the problem the higher the level at which a solution is usually handled, if it can indeed be handled.

Healthcare in this nation is an exremely complex issue with participants in the problem with conflicting needs/desires. There are the patients, doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, medical researchers, insurance companies, lawyers, employers, employees, etc., etc. Not all legislation acted upon by the federal government is complex, but I would say that most of it is, and probably more complex than we can even know. It is also my experience that the government doesn't usually go around looking for things to stick their noses into. Most often some constituency perceives a problem and seeks a remedy from their elected officials. Let's face it, most politicians, just like the rest of us, don't want to do more than they have to do to keep everyone happy and thus get re-elected.

A final thought for now, when I was in my 20's and 30's, life was much more black and white and problems seemed simpler. As I have grown older (and I hope wiser, although that is not certain) I find that there are many more gray areas (besides the top of my head) than there used to be in my thinking. I do not think that the problems have gotten a lot more complex, it is that my understanding of problems has become broader and sometimes deeper. There really are some issues that do not have simple answers.