Today is June 28, 2012. It's an historic day for several reasons:
- First of all, in 1914 Austria's Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, leading to the Great War (World War I).
- In 1894 Labor Day was enacted by Congress, setting it as the first Monday in September.
- The first Corvette rolled of the production line in Flint, Michigan.
The arguments have been all over the board. From the far left emotional pleas of "poor people need healthcare and rich Republicans just want to keep them down" to the far right retorts that "God is not happy with this law... it kills babies and old people." What it really boils down to is much more humanly fundamental than the grandiose ballyhoos. The U.S. Constitution was set up to ensure our safety and prosperity and to protect our freedoms (those would be unalienable rights in the Declaration). It seems that this is a good point to get THIS off my chest: regardless of how noble the goal of universal healthcare may or may not be, any service provided to you by someone else it is not a RIGHT. Just like you don't have a "right" to have a car provided for you but you do have a right to own personal property, including a car. Words have profound meaning, folks. Now that's out of the way.
The Real Motivations Behind the Healthcare Act
Hunger, shelter, sex, warmth, acceptance, gratification, security, power, stimulation. These are some of many human motivations and some are more basic than others. What we are dealing with in the Healthcare Act are very basic.
- Greed and security. First, on the part of the people who want to be given something that someone else has. Either poor, ignorant or ideological people who want the government to better them at the expense of others. Basically, this is greed by proxy. In other words, letting the government do your dirty work. Let me take this time to say that there are legitimately poor people who really need help taking care of life's necessities and dealing with the huge expenses of medical catastrophes. We cannot pretend these facts do not exist but we must also admit that our government may or may not have the best solution, if one is to be had at all.
- Greed and selfishness. Let us also be honest enough to admit that there are those with wealth (and even those without) who are in a position to help other but chose not to out of greed. Maybe this cohort comprises the majority of the American population at this point. Most Americans claim to be religious and Christian at that. What happened to "faith, hope and charity but the greatest of these is charity?"
- Power and security. Second, on the part of those who wanted to pass the Act in order to garner favor with the voting populace in order to get re-elected and stay in power. This is exceptionally common and the primary motivation of the career politician. This is my primary reason for supporting term limits. Go to Washington, do good for your country, go home an get back to work.
- Fear and security. The third subset is the group that oppose the legislation because it is a perceived threat to the real income of every American. Some realize that their total costs will increase and their disposable income will decline as a result of this new "tax," not to mention the fact that insurance companies are forced to raise rates to offset new mandates in the legislation. Additionally, there is a greater fear that is still fundamental to mankind, and that fear is that things will be changing. The uncertainty of the extent of the economic impact is a legitimate fear, but the fear of the unknown is often exaggerated in the human psyche. However, basic economic principles tell us that when people have less disposable income they spend less, and when business have higher expenses (like health insurance) they hire less. That is a pretty basic (and much ignored) impact from this legislation and others like it. So the fear of a sinking economy burdened by the Act is not unfounded.
Chasing A Darwinian Rabbit
The last point begs the question, if most of us are worse off and less profitable in the end, how will we continue to pay for rising healthcare costs in an increasing population? To chase a rabbit trail, if we look at this from a purely humanistic standpoint (which is the far left mindset) isn't it better that most of us are better off with a few who suffer from a lack of affordable healthcare (assuming this is actually true) than making most of us worse off (which is also an assumption but supportable) while improving the lives of the proportionate few? If the humanistic leftist is intellectually honest, why not let the law of the survival of the fittest take its course by not providing healthcare to those who cannot provide it for themselves? Of course, this is a cold and harsh view of the world and not one that most humanists freely espouse, but I think consistent. From an economics standpoint, the Act violates the concept of Pareto Optimality whereby some can be made better off while simultaneously making no one else worse off.
That is not to say that the religious right is correct in it's cry that charity is the sole resolution to the ills of poverty and personal catastrophe. To be quite honest, this view ignores the fact that most Americans are not willing to go out and look for people who need financial help and then cut them a check. Partially this is out of greed. Partially because there is a general understanding that frauds abound who don't really need the money and even if they do the money is spent on beer and cigarettes instead of the rent. The later problem is just exacerbated when the government gives handouts where the results cannot be policed. The greater problem is that Americans are increasingly void of integrity, which means fewer people are charitable and fewer people put the money to good use. Maybe the answer is that there is not a feasible or sustainable solution to the healthcare "problem." Maybe we just need to admit that suffering is part of the human experience and that we each are subject to it.
God, Country and Peace
I say all of that to say this. "Let not your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in [Jesus]." A phrase hijacked... uh, used by Sean Hannity, is so very true in the face of something that could make quite a few people depressed. First, let's be honest: this is really a symptom of a rich country. We are so rich that many have come to believe healthcare is a "right" in the same way life is characterized as a right by our founding fathers. So we are exceptionally BLESSED. You will start off on the wrong foot in thinking about all of this if you do not first recognize and internalize this. You will also come to peace with the whole thing much faster when you internalize that while you have a say in our representative democracy, ultimately God is in control. Trust in Him.
And that brings me to my last point. I sent a text to a friend this morning who keeps up with sports more than current events. His reply to my announcement on the ruling of the Supreme Court was something to the effect that maybe someone will do something about this "with God's help." And then the text argument began.
But in all seriousness, if you one thing today, let it be this: God cares for each and every soul on this earth but whether or not every person in the USA has healthcare coverage is not on His priority list. His ways are higher than our ways. God desires that we obey Him. Our job is to live our lives in respect and love for God. I just don't see where health insurance factors into God's plan for our lives. If God has allowed horrible and tyrannical governments to persist throughout the ages, what difference does a healthcare act matter to Him? It is not that He does not care because we know He does. He also calls us to cast our cares upon Him and then go on living our lives. God uses government to accomplish His will and His will is that we obey Him, not that we do or do not have healthcare.
Let us continue to strive to better our lives, while at the same time making God our first priority. Then we can be at peace.
