Should American Christians be in support of government-run healthcare?

[DanC922]

EDIT - My point in this isn't a debate on government-run healthcare btw. It's an addressing of the failing of American Christians in using our resources rightly.

I've listened some lately to commentary from conservative Christians on the vote on government-run healthcare. And it's got me wondering. Is there Biblical precedent to being vehemently opposed to it? Sure, I'm absolutely not in favor of government-funded abortion, and the cost is a bit of a sticker shock. But is the very idea of government-run healthcare unBiblical?

All throughout Scripture, God is constantly revealed as being near to, healing, and caring for the poor, needy, and brokenhearted.

Psalm 34:18
The LORD is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.

Psalm 147:3
He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.

Psalm 61:1 (prophecy concerning Jesus)
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'

Psalm 12:5
"Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise," says the LORD;"I will place him in the safety for which he longs."

Psalm 9:18
For the needy shall not always be forgotten,and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.

Psalm 37:14-15
The wicked draw the sword and bend their bows
to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose way is upright;
their sword shall enter their own heart,
and their bows shall be broken.

Psalm 109:31
For he stands at the right hand of the needy one,
to save him from those who condemn his soul to death.

Proverbs 14:31
Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.

Proverbs 31:9
Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Acts 2:42-47
42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The list could go on and on and on. God's character is to provide for the needy, poor, brokenhearted, etc... And we are given a mandate to do the same, and if we are Christians, we should have a desire to do that. And the fact is that, as a whole, we don't.

Giving in the United States to churches by members is around 2.5% of post-tax income. At the very least, Christians should observe the concept of 'tithing 10%', though the New Testament clearly shows that Christians should be generous, giving as is needed. Acts 2 describes the early church, showing how they were so in love with God that their money (though most were poor already) was viewed as a tool for glorifying God, and not just as a means to the end of their own self-fulfillment.

So we've been given a Biblical precedent to care for the poor and needy while being generous with our resources. And we have utterly failed at this. While some churches have done a lot of good with this (United Methodists with GraceMed in Wichita as well as some hospitals started by churches), the body of Christ in large part in the United States has failed. 2.5% is pitiful. Many people spend that much of their income on Starbucks.

One of the biggest problems conservatives have with the health care bill is the very high cost. The proposed cost ranges from $650 billion to $1 trillion. Taking survey numbers from empty tomb, inc. (as well as the 2.5%), if American church members began giving merely 10% of their income, that cost of healthcare could likely be covered by double at the low cost estimate, and easily cover all of it at the high end. And we could provide healthcare saturated with the Gospel, putting "awe" in the souls of 50,000,000 Americans who have no health coverage.

So perhaps since the church cares so much about our precious dollars, and so little about the sick, needy, and helpless, maybe it is now the government's job to care for them.

 

[Luther073082]

I think when one looks at how to run a healthcare system one has to consider what system they would see as being the most effective (in outcomes and cost) and most free.

I think its a mis-use of scripture to try to utilize it to try and force a person to one position or the other in regards to health care.

The government is not charity and charity is not the government.

Also I think the 10% figure is a form of legalism. While it may be a good place to start from or a good goal to reach its legalism to tell people exactly how much they are to give. The spirit should lead them into how much they give.

I'm going to avoid going further then this because doing so would get into the territory of debating the merits of government provided health care and or the new health care bill.

 

[explodingboy]

Essential, it all comes down to your perspective on Healthcare, one thing I noticed was that allot of conservatives like to see it a privilege, where as pretty much any European would say it's a human right.

When it comes to things like funding for abortions, and special rights for doctors.. honestly having grown up with the NHS and then lived in the US.. it seems like alot of fuss about nothing (atheist in me wise) and throwing the baby out with the bathwater (plainly speaking)

Finally when it comes down to service providing, simply put churches don't have the same reach that the government does, and that really has been the issue with the US healthcare system. the market based insurance only works if it can make a profit, and the safety net to catch what falls through the cracks wasn't big enough for the job.

 

[Breakaway_republic]

.....

The government is not charity and charity is not the government.

Also I think the 10% figure is a form of legalism. While it may be a good place to start from or a good goal to reach its legalism to tell people exactly how much they are to give. The spirit should lead them into how much they give.

I'm going to avoid going further then this because doing so would get into the territory of debating the merits of government provided health care and or the new health care bill.

Well said, Luther!
The Government really has no place being the "provider" , it's the church that's supposed to be doing that kind of thing [especially heathcare]. BUT american-style christianity has failed again to live up to God's standards [not being judgemental, however, stating observations and fact].

 

[Luther073082]

Well said, Luther!
The Government really has no place being the "provider" , it's the church that's supposed to be doing that kind of thing [especially heathcare]. BUT american-style christianity has failed again to live up to God's standards [not being judgemental, however, stating observations and fact].

All Christianity fails to live up to God's standards, thats why we needed a Christ.

My general feeling is that we should be very careful about using scripture to force a political opinion. Because we both know that this government is not a theocracy and desire that it remain not a theocracy. Call me crazy but I don't think theocratic government is good government.

So while my faith might shape some of my opinions, its not the basis of every opinion.

For example I actually support the legalization of prostitution in the US. Not because I think prostitution is morally ok, but because I don't like the government to tell us whats morally ok and whats not when we arn't hurting anyone but ourselves.

Plus I find that the entire institution would probably far more safe and far less harmful to communities when legal then when illegal.

Thats certainly not an opinion that I come to based on my faith. But its one that I come to off of a mixture of libertarian sensibilities and logic.

 

[marshalljonesjr]

For example I actually support the legalization of prostitution in the US. Not because I think prostitution is morally ok, but because I don't like the government to tell us whats morally ok and whats not when we arn't hurting anyone but ourselves.

...

That's certainly not an opinion that I come to based on my faith. But its one that I come to off of a mixture of libertarian sensibilities and logic.

I agree with you on your position there, but I think in a deeper sense, your decision is based on your faith. The difference is that you're looking at both the benefits and consequences of specific actions or legislation.

For me, I don't like the Health Care reform in the U.S. not because I'm against liberally giving to people but because I have deeper beliefs about how we should do that.

Whether anyone agrees with me or not on that specific point, I think we (myself included) could all stand to pay more attention to overall concerns, not just the immediate proposals and their obvious benefits.

 

[Weasel7711]

Is there Biblical precedent to being vehemently opposed to it?
...
But is the very idea of government-run healthcare unBiblical.

No biblical precendent, since the Bible is completely silent on the issue of governent run healthcare, just as it is silent on McDonalds. The argument is strictly political.

Government, especially the US federal government has no responsibility or authority to pay for the healthcare of its citizens and illegal immigrants. The US government is here to provide the ability for us to have life (preventing others from killing us), liberty (making sure we can make our own choices with our property), and the pursuit of property and happiness (keyword pursuit). The power to mandate and legislate healthcare in the united states is not given to congress anywhere, and thus they have illegally taken that power, and no one is going to stop them unless the supreme court decides to do something about it, which i'm not so sure they care about the constitution any more.

The Federal Government is also notorious for being wasteful and irresponsible. I see no reason why they should have control over my medical bills when they have done such a great job with medicare/medicaid and social security. In the end the quality of care in america will not go up, it will go down as costs increase and legal ramifications for doctors grow exponentially. We will also be fined and or jailed if we do not purchase a health insurance plan, something that is our God-given right to choose for ourselves.

The problem many of us have is that "social justice" has been used by government and social leaders to get into the church in order to control the churched. By guilt tripping the church into caring for the poor, they can get them on their side, in the name of "caring for the least of these." The social justice movement has perverted the gospel into a watered down "all you need is love" movement. The gospel is not "God will get you some socks and you can rely on others to feed you" The Gospel is that "YOU are a filthy dirty rotten sinner who has rebelled against God, BUT He in his Abounding Grace has made a way for you, in order that you might repent and have life, and have it abundantly"
For what shall it profit a man that he should gain the world yet forfeit his soul? You can send a man to hell fully clothed on a full stomach.

Certainly without a doubt we are charged with helping our fellow humans and we SHOULD, but our goal is to save them, not prolong their life and let them burn in hell for eternity. The Gospel and service go hand in hand.

 

[explodingboy]

No biblical precendent, since the Bible is completely silent on the issue of governent run healthcare, just as it is silent on McDonalds. The argument is strictly political.

this point me and the bottle of Jack agree with you on.

Government, especially the US federal government has no responsibility or authority to pay for the healthcare of its citizens and illegal immigrants. The US government is here to provide the ability for us to have life (preventing others from killing us), liberty (making sure we can make our own choices with our property), and the pursuit of property and happiness (keyword pursuit). The power to mandate and legislate healthcare in the united states is not given to congress anywhere, and thus they have illegally taken that power, and no one is going to stop them unless the supreme court decides to do something about it, which i'm not so sure they care about the constitution any more.

Authority smority, The constitution is not carved in stone handed down to Jefferson on the mountain, it's a document written by men, for a time we no longer live in.

The world has carried on, and like the pioneers in the West you have to adapt otherwise you'll get nowhere.

The Federal Government is also notorious for being wasteful and irresponsible. I see no reason why they should have control over my medical bills when they have done such a great job with medicare/medicaid and social security. In the end the quality of care in america will not go up, it will go down as costs increase and legal ramifications for doctors grow exponentially. We will also be fined and or jailed if we do not purchase a health insurance plan, something that is our God-given right to choose for ourselves.

Your paying 3-7 times over the rest of Western civilisation, for a service that doesn't even cover everyone. ie: you have a problem there to be fixed. You can't complain about being Jailed or fined for not seeking coverage when you decide that anything but private insurance is evil socialism, remember for instance anyone not covered is going to end up being picked up by the federal or state government at the end of the day.

The problem many of us have is that "social justice" has been used by government and social leaders to get into the church in order to control the churched. By guilt tripping the church into caring for the poor, they can get them on their side, in the name of "caring for the least of these." The social justice movement has perverted the gospel into a watered down "all you need is love" movement. The gospel is not "God will get you some socks and you can rely on others to feed you" The Gospel is that "YOU are a filthy dirty rotten sinner who has rebelled against God, BUT He in his Abounding Grace has made a way for you, in order that you might repent and have life, and have it abundantly"
For what shall it profit a man that he should gain the world yet forfeit his soul? You can send a man to hell fully clothed on a full stomach.

Social Justice isn't a dirty word. but it is pretty much daft to expect that churches can even slightly match what the government can achieve in regards to personal well being, you know that whole buying for the mass power a church will never get.

Certainly without a doubt we are charged with helping our fellow humans and we SHOULD, but our goal is to save them, not prolong their life and let them burn in hell for eternity. The Gospel and service go hand in hand.

uh huh, See personally I'd agree with the whole not prolonging life, I can't think of any fate worse than death than being hooked up to a life support machine >_> seriously they are just pure evil in a little beige box.


I soo can't remember what I'm replying too right now >_> damm you Jack!

 

[Weasel7711]

From your second comment you have shown that you and I have disagreements on fundamental rights and the place of gov't so lets just agree to disagree because we will get nowhere on that issue.

In regard to what you said later:
It's been shown that private charities, such as the salvation army or world vision, are much more responsible than governments. With gov'ts the money gets lost in bureaucracy and corruption. Allow private citizens to keep their money and spend it how they wish, or send tax money to private charities. After all they already are going to be funding abortions, so much for respecting the religious beliefs of the taxpayers.

 

[explodingboy]

From your second comment you have shown that you and I have disagreements on fundamental rights and the place of gov't so lets just agree to disagree because we will get nowhere on that issue.

I'm soo past drunk right now I shall just agree with you here, not entirely sure what your replying too.

[qupte]In regard to what you said later:
It's been shown that private charities, such as the salvation army or world vision, are much more responsible than governments. With gov'ts the money gets lost in bureaucracy and corruption. Allow private citizens to keep their money and spend it how they wish, or send tax money to private charities. After all they already are going to be funding abortions, so much for respecting the religious beliefs of the taxpayers.[/quote]

Money may get lost in bureaucracy I will not argue with that, but I'd rather see money lost there than profit being made out of denying care. Abortion isn't covered in healthcare reform, I personally think most of America has got itself soo wrapped up on single issues that it fails to see the bigger picture and that is simply put, Government is made up by the people, and in that aspect it should be standing up for the people against big coporate interests. We pay less in the UK for healthcare because we have a system that sets prices limits on what will be payed. corporations can either agree to it, or loose an entire countries market, America on the otherhand, has broken the chain of power of government meaning that the insurance company can set the price at what ever it wants without anyone being able to reject,

 

[Qyöt27]

The problem many of us have is that "social justice" has been used by government and social leaders to get into the church in order to control the churched. By guilt tripping the church into caring for the poor, they can get them on their side, in the name of "caring for the least of these." The social justice movement has perverted the gospel into a watered down "all you need is love" movement. The gospel is not "God will get you some socks and you can rely on others to feed you" The Gospel is that "YOU are a filthy dirty rotten sinner who has rebelled against God, BUT He in his Abounding Grace has made a way for you, in order that you might repent and have life, and have it abundantly"
For what shall it profit a man that he should gain the world yet forfeit his soul? You can send a man to hell fully clothed on a full stomach.

It's been shown that private charities, such as the salvation army or world vision,

Point A) warp the meaning of 'social justice' to mean something it's been almost opposite of for 300 years, to the point of completely ignoring the point that it originated in churches in the 1700s, and is simply the expression of one's own service in their community, both evangelically-based and to those less fortunate and struggling, tied to what most of us take for granted as basic human rights. It was 'social justice' that underlaid both the Abolitionist movement and the Temperance movement...sure, Prohibition failed, but ending slavery didn't.

Point B) praise an organization which embodies 'social justice' more than practically anything else about them, and was founded on it institutionally.

But I'd just be repeating myself if I get into it here, and don't want to get into it again - there was already a thread on it in the Singles section a week or two ago. Only that the term 'social justice' and the precepts behind it are very much rooted and integral to Wesleyan thought, from which Methodism, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Salvation Army all sprung forth from. The recent controversy tries to pervert the meaning of the phrase to attack the opposition's straw socialists, when in reality it was never a political movement at all, except in those cases that said churches railed against government and social ills.

 

[Weasel7711]

That wasn't my point and you are twisting my words. The point is that so many church denominations preach social justice as something that leaves out the gospel. Social justice has been perverted in modern Xianity, it isn't innately or historically wrong.

 

[Jesusfreak93]

The biggest problem I have with the healthcare "law" (I'm praying that the states will be able to nullify it somehow.) is that it forces taxpayers to support abortion. I have heard rumors that this was changed, but only rumors. It also treads upon our state's rights, and individual rights as citizens. The government cannot force people to buy healthcare, or at least it's not supposed to be able to. However it has been "ramrodded" through Congress and signed by the President. Somewhere between 13-15 states are opposing this measure, sueing the federal government. They have not listened to the people's voices on this; President Obama admits that it wouldn't be popular. Is not our country founded on a variant of democracy (though more of a republic) and thus based on the people's opinion? Depending on the poll, up to 71% of Americans are against the bill, and yet they passed it? I find it incredulous that they could assume so much power, as to ignore the people. The federal government has overstepped its bounds. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" has allowed our government for years to gradually build its power, but even recent presidents could not have imagined so blatant an attack on civil liberties. I love America, or the America we should be, I'm not a crazy clammoring for secession, or desiring to leave America, I just feel we should stop the ever advancing federal governments attack on the citizen. First President Bush was tapping phone lines, now President Obama is forcing us to buy healthcare and pay for people to have abortions with our own money. Prayer is needed for this nation.

 

[explodingboy]

The biggest problem I have with the healthcare "law" (I'm praying that the states will be able to nullify it somehow.) is that it forces taxpayers to support abortion. I have heard rumors that this was changed, but only rumors. It also treads upon our state's rights, and individual rights as citizens. The government cannot force people to buy healthcare, or at least it's not supposed to be able to. However it has been "ramrodded" through Congress and signed by the President. Somewhere between 13-15 states are opposing this measure, sueing the federal government. They have not listened to the people's voices on this; President Obama admits that it wouldn't be popular. Is not our country founded on a variant of democracy (though more of a republic) and thus based on the people's opinion? Depending on the poll, up to 71% of Americans are against the bill, and yet they passed it? I find it incredulous that they could assume so much power, as to ignore the people. The federal government has overstepped its bounds. The "Necessary and Proper Clause" has allowed our government for years to gradually build its power, but even recent presidents could not have imagined so blatant an attack on civil liberties. I love America, or the America we should be, I'm not a crazy clammoring for secession, or desiring to leave America, I just feel we should stop the ever advancing federal governments attack on the citizen. First President Bush was tapping phone lines, now President Obama is forcing us to buy healthcare and pay for people to have abortions with our own money. Prayer is needed for this nation.

Seriously... how many times do you need to see the whole no abortion coverage in health care reform before you'll believe it? also, if we're generous and say 15 states are suing that means.. 35 see no legal grounds to oppose it on (remember numbers have 2 sides to them in much the same way a glass can be half empty and half full at the same time)

As to not listening to the people.. maybe the people shouldn't have elected all these pro health care reform candidates and President, all of whom were extremely upfront with what they intended to do. As to the 71% that is A- Higher than anything I've seen before, B- Your forgetting a good portion of the opposition is because of the LACK of a public option and even not being single payer. (lets face it before the debate got nasty the public option was around 60% in favour by the public)

 

[Sketcher]

I agree that Christians should give 10% rather than 2.5%. I myself give 10% whenever I'm blessed with income. However, neither the church's failures nor any one of the Biblical passages you posted tells us in any way that the US government should run health care. The church has its failures, yes, but the government makes the church look good.

Here's government health care in action: 'Don't get sick after June,' American Indians say | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Furthermore, the big entitlements we already have (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are inefficient and unsustainable. We spend more on those than we spend on the military - in fact, almost twice as much (p.12 of PDF). But they're not doing a good job, and they're bankrupting the country. I see no reason to entrust them with another big entitlement.

But one thing as a believer I cannot abide is this attitude that some Christians have that the church has failed, so we might as well have the government do the charity work we're supposed to be doing. The more the government gets involved, the more the church gets squeezed out of the picture, and people are still in need. Government involvement does not close the gap of need left by the church, it shoves the church aside - after all, if the government is going to take care of this and that, why would the church get involved? The more Christians refer people in need to government offices rather than help the people themselves or refer them to church resources, the more we play into the devil's hand. It is he who wants to make the church irrelevant in our culture, and government dependence is an excellent way to do it. The answer to the church's failures is not acquiescence, but awakening. Rather than turn to the government for what we should be doing ourselves, we must revive and do it ourselves in a great move of God.

 

[Weasel7711]

Twisted you can always word things better than I can.

 

[Jesusfreak93]

Seriously... how many times do you need to see the whole no abortion coverage in health care reform before you'll believe it? also, if we're generous and say 15 states are suing that means.. 35 see no legal grounds to oppose it on (remember numbers have 2 sides to them in much the same way a glass can be half empty and half full at the same time)

As to not listening to the people.. maybe the people shouldn't have elected all these pro health care reform candidates and President, all of whom were extremely upfront with what they intended to do. As to the 71% that is A- Higher than anything I've seen before, B- Your forgetting a good portion of the opposition is because of the LACK of a public option and even not being single payer. (lets face it before the debate got nasty the public option was around 60% in favour by the public)

How sad that politicians don't voice their true opinions on an election campaign. The number 71% was about a week prior to the bill's passing, so it is not current data, nor was it explicitly stated as such. With so many against, how can their be a lack of opinion?

 

[explodingboy]

How sad that politicians don't voice their true opinions on an election campaign. The number 71% was about a week prior to the bill's passing, so it is not current data, nor was it explicitly stated as such. With so many against, how can their be a lack of opinion?

Well in the case of Obama, there is no shortage at all that he was going to deal with health care from the get go. And this is where the next point came in, most of the opinion against the bill on the left was because it wasn't a radical proposal, the Public option was cut out, and Universal coverage was taken off the table at the get go.

For instance, you have a figure of 71% against the bill, but the effort to repeal the bill as of last week doesn't get much past 40% of the public support. The polls aren't detailed, the more flexible a poll answer can be the less effective a poll question it is, The question do you support the Healthcare bill Y/N doesn't leave any room for why. It's in these grey areas that it gets really fun, because the Representative now has 2 options, support the bill, hoping it will get better, or vote against the bill with no guarantee that the issue will come back up.

Remember all the Republican cries of scrap the bill and start again? do you actually think they would seriously sit down and start a new bill if they'd had there way, especially going on their track record of making demands and voting no even after they got their way all through the committee stages.

 

[DanC922]

I agree that Christians should give 10% rather than 2.5%. I myself give 10% whenever I'm blessed with income. However, neither the church's failures nor any one of the Biblical passages you posted tells us in any way that the US government should run health care. The church has its failures, yes, but the government makes the church look good.

Here's government health care in action: 'Don't get sick after June,' American Indians say | Richmond Times-Dispatch

Furthermore, the big entitlements we already have (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) are inefficient and unsustainable. We spend more on those than we spend on the military - in fact, almost twice as much (p.12 of PDF). But they're not doing a good job, and they're bankrupting the country. I see no reason to entrust them with another big entitlement.

But one thing as a believer I cannot abide is this attitude that some Christians have that the church has failed, so we might as well have the government do the charity work we're supposed to be doing. The more the government gets involved, the more the church gets squeezed out of the picture, and people are still in need. Government involvement does not close the gap of need left by the church, it shoves the church aside - after all, if the government is going to take care of this and that, why would the church get involved? The more Christians refer people in need to government offices rather than help the people themselves or refer them to church resources, the more we play into the devil's hand. It is he who wants to make the church irrelevant in our culture, and government dependence is an excellent way to do it. The answer to the church's failures is not acquiescence, but awakening. Rather than turn to the government for what we should be doing ourselves, we must revive and do it ourselves in a great move of God.

Keep in mind that I didn't say I am for government-run healthcare, posting Scripture in support of it, but that the point of my post was to show how Christians have majorly dropped the ball, and God may just be allowing the government to take over since Christians won't do it. I fully agree that the church should continue to care for the poor, sick, and needy in a Gospel-saturated way, and should even be working and giving far more generously now since it may become far harder than before to do so in this area. The passage of this bill should be an encouragement for Christians to step up and start living out the Gospel instead of wasting away in their own pursuits.

 

[The Valkyrie]

Should they?

Probably only if they believe it will help more people than otherwise. This will almost certainly depend on what kind of healthcare reform it is.