United Methodist pastor, Chris Roberts writes that making the rich pay for health care reform is immoral. Read his post here.What do you think? Feel free to respond in the comments below so that we might have a good discussion.
United Methodist pastor, Chris Roberts writes that making the rich pay for health care reform is immoral. Read his post here.
27 comments:
Not stealing - but very problematic.
As Christ Roberts points out - we have a duty to pay our taxes.
We live in a democracy, so we are (very ideally) the government - so we are deciding (through our elected representatives) to give our stuff away to the poor.
So while I have the reponsibility as a follower of Christ to help the poor; as a member of society I am involved in deciding how my taxes will be used.
The danger is that the society (and followers of Christ) decides that their responsibilities to the poor are being handled by civil government - our Kingdom responsibilities are deferred to the civil kingdom.
Which brings me to the principle of subsidiarity
Pope Pius XI: "As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them."
So, we risk individuals ignoring their direct responsibilities to direct poor folk; and in the health care bill the usurption of insurance companies by the Federal government. This is most strikingly seen in the problems created by applying the Hyde Amendment (through Stupak) to the current health care bill.
It's "stealing" in a society that has broad agreement with the idea that Nothing Is More Important Than Me. Which is undoubtedly the society we are living in so it's hardly surprising to hear this argument.
I guess Chris thinks that taxation that asks the rich to pay a greater percentage or dollar amount than the poor is stealing. I guess that he thinks most European healthcare systems are stealing since they depend on some kind of subsidy from people who are working to pay for the healthcare of those who cannot or do not work.
No, I do not expect a random rich person to be forced to pay for my individual healthcare needs. What I do expect from a society which is following Christian values (which I know ours does not) is the validation of every life as worthy of decent healthcare. I expect society to say that everyone will pay a proportion so that everyone will have a minimum standard of healthcare.
What I don't expect is what we have now: A society that says that if I can't afford healthcare I "shouldn't" have it, in the same way that if I can't afford a dishwasher I shouldn't have it. I don't expect society to say it's perfectly fine for healthcare insurance companies to be immune from monopoly laws. I don't expect society to say that it's perfectly fine for pharmaceutical companies to be earning 20%, 25% and 30% profit margins after R&D costs. I don't expect a society to have the attitude that civil court lawsuit awards should amount to unlimited tens of millions of dollars.
Our society values money first and individualism second. We do not, do not, do not operate on the basis of caring at all for our neighbor, let alone the higher standard of loving. I'm always gobsmacked when Christians buy into these cultural values of money and "me first". Half of the truth of the Great Commandment is "I am because we are". Americans, and increasingly the West in general, believes "We are because I deign to participate."
I don't think it's stealing. I pay my taxes, and don't agree with everything the government spends my tax dollars on, but that's the way it is.
Honestly, I would not have a problem knowing my tax dollars were going to provide health care for someone. There are too many people in this country without even basic health care.
Allan, thanks for highlighting my thoughts on this matter. Just to be clear this link is to the second part and a response to comments from my first post on the matter.
Here is the link to the first post:
http://pastorchrisroberts.blogspot.com/2009/11/rich-should-buy-me-new-car.html
Just for clarification, I am not suggesting that taxes are stealing, but that the expectataion that the rich will pay for MY health care (or anything) is the same as stealing or at least hiring someone to steal for you.
Again, I am flattered that you would single out my blog post. Of course, I'm never sure what to think of it when you or Shane Raynor pick out my ramblings. Perhaps this should be a lesson to me.
I am thankful for the responses so far and I look forward to seeing more.
Peace.
Just for clarification, I am not suggesting that taxes are stealing, but that the expectation that the rich will pay for MY health care (or anything) is the same as stealing or at least hiring someone to steal for you.
It doesn't really clarify, actually. Because I don't know anyone who is going around saying "I expect some rich person somewhere to pay for my health-care if I get ill."
Chris,
Thanks for the additional link. I highlighted the post because I thought it was an interesting way to generate some discussion on health care.
I like John H's comment about how we are delegating our responsibility to care for one another to the government.
As we allow or even direct our government to fix all of the problems in our society, they are introducing an ever-increasing complexity into our society that actually works to oppress more people than it helps.
oppression can be defined in many ways and I don't want to be overly dramatic but the effect is that power is consolidated into the federal government with each new program. The rules of our society become so complex that it is impossible to truly understand all of what is going on and the people who these programs are designed to help become objectified, marginalized and forgotten.
Sounds to me like the temple and religion structures of Jesus' day. The Pharisees of the Bible have been replaced with bureaucrats and pundits.
The question is wrong. It should be, How did the rich get rich? Did they not make money in this society? Should they not be expected to care for the society? What are the tax codes like? Are the rich paying as much as the middle class? No they are not. What is wealth distribution like in our society? Why are the laws and tax codes tilted in favor of the richest 10% of our society? These questions are more to the point concerning ethics in wealth and tax issues. The short answer to the wrong question is that it is not stealing. Pastor Roberts should investigate the distribution of wealth and tax rates since 1950 to the prestent time to see a clear illustration of why the ranks of the poor are growing in America. Stealing?!?!, yes!, by the wealthy!
So, to continue this discussion a bit longer, let me ask all of you some questions to respond to if you desire.
John H. Thanks for your excellent comments. I also always like it when someone quotes a Pope! Given the dilemma you rightly outline, what are your thoughts on how to deal with health care reform?
Pam: You rightly highlight the moral aspect of health care reform. Two questions: First, you mention taxation that "asks" the rich to pay. But taxation is not asking them to do anything. It is forcing them to pay. Do you think that is a bad thing? Second, you also mention a "society that is following Christian values." If that is what we are (a huge assumption I know) then what do we say to the rich atheist or the wealthy Hindu on this subject?
One more quick thing Pam. You say you don't know anyone saying they want the rich to pay for health care, but I do know people. Does that amount to its own kind of selfishness?
DB Mom: There are some ways in which your tax money is spent you do not like. We are all in that boat in one way or another. Is that what you would say to the person who doesn't like his or her tax dollars going to health care?
Chris: I agree with Pam-- you are not entirely clear about taxes in this case being stealing. Could you possibly clarify even further?
Chuck, I am very sympathetic to what you say. The church, I believe, has shirked its responsibilities in many areas by simply giving it over to the government or non-church volunteer agencies. However, there are those who say that health care reform is too big for the church to deal with, so by necessity the government has to do it. How do you respond to this?
Bruce, you make an excellent observation-- those who gain their wealth from this society have a responsibility to give something back to society. There are those, however, who would take great issue with your interpretation of the tax code and who pays what. It is acknowledged by everyone that 50% of the people in the U.S.A. pay no taxes and those are not the wealthiest-- they are the ones in the lowest 50% of the income bracket, which means that there are those who would be considered lower middle class who pay no taxes at all.
The problem as many see it is that what is being proposed in Washington right now will indeed squeeze the middle class small business owners who provide most of the employment in this country. I know some small business owners personally who know what may be coming and they are not willing to hire anyone else at this point nor are they thinking of expanding their businesses because they do not know what all this means for them and their business. These people are not evil and greedy. They make for themselves a decent living and they do their best to provide for their employees; but they do not know how all of this will effect them.
In other words, I am not sure that your take on taxes can be sustained. How do you respond?
This has been a good discussion. Anyone else just monitoring is free to weigh in as well.
Darn, I just lost a post. Maybe I need to be briefer in my answers!
First, you mention taxation that "asks" the rich to pay. But taxation is not asking them to do anything. It is forcing them to pay. Do you think that is a bad thing?
I tried to explain this a bit before - badly, I guess. I don't see taxation as "force". I see it as the price of living in a society that purports to pool risks and benefits and care for all members of society. We do this in many areas: police, fire, education, sewage, a court system that will defend the weak against the powerful.
Second, you also mention a "society that is following Christian values." If that is what we are (a huge assumption I know) then what do we say to the rich atheist or the wealthy Hindu on this subject?
What I mean is I'm a Christian and should be doing my ethics from a Christian perspective, not from a utilitarian perspective or from the prevailing value of our culture which is - in my opinion - "The business of society is making money."
Since I also believe that democracy is the least worst way of governing, I expect to follow laws laid out by democratic process and I expect Hindus and atheists to do the same.
One more quick thing Pam. You say you don't know anyone saying they want the rich to pay for health care, but I do know people. Does that amount to its own kind of selfishness?
If you are saying that you know people who are saying "My plan for life is to contribute nothing to my own wealfare or the welfare of others. My plan is to expect and demand that the rich pay for me." Then, yes, it is selfishness. I'd probably say it's also sociopathy. I had regular visits in my UK post from someone - quite intelligent - who I believe had this precise plan.
I was assuming however - perhaps incorrectly - that Chris meant to characterize those of us who favor a government health option as people who are expecting the rich to pay for us. I'm willing to be corrected if he didn't mean that.
Given the dilemma you rightly outline, what are your thoughts on how to deal with health care reform?
I think that the Federal government is going to, again, kill flies with a bazooka. The problems, as I understand it, were:
* controlling the rise of costs
* reforming some areas like coverage for pre-existing conditions
* insuring the uninsured.
I am pretty certain that, as someone in the $30-40K income backet, my health care costs are going to go up - between taxes to support others and the cost of regulation of my current insurance coverage. Perhaps the Federal plan will give me a lower cost alternative to my employer plan (for my wife at least), but then that is the subsidiarity problem. One conservative criticism is that eventually the private insurance industry will dry up and blow away as the Federal plan (with the advantage of taxpayer subsidies) simply competes them out of the market.
I think people need medical coverage - although I do not think that is a right in any sense. It is something the country is capable of doing - not something that is required for it to do.
Do I think that the entire medical insurance industry in the US needs to be taken over by the Federal government? No, this is massive overreach (as usual) to solve the problems listed above.
What will I do? Trust God and spread the Gospel
Pam, that is exactly what I am saying. If you go to my blog and read my first post on this matter you will see that what started by ramblings here was a poll released that said a majority of Americans want the rich to pay for the health care reform.
I'm not opposed to taxation. Hell, I'm not even opposed to some kind of health care reform (we all should be supportive of some kind of reform). I'm opposed to an "entitlement mentality." I'm also opposed to dis-incentivizing people to earn an income or even to get rich. There is nothing wrong with being rich. I would love for more people to find ways to strike it rich, to get an education, start new businesses, hire more people, stimulate the economy, cross the line of faith in Jesus, give in Jesus’ name out of love for the neighbor and the stranger in times of need. The government stands to benefit as people find new ways to innovate. It helps the economy greatly for big business to succeed, invest, and allow small businesses to make loans. It is the beauty of our economic system.
Further, I don’t buy into the notion that the rich have gotten rich off the backs of “slave labor” or the “poor.” It is a relationship between employers and employees. Both need the other. Everyone should be thankful that this system has worked so well for so long in the America-experiment. I’ll admit that at times business has taken advantage of the workers and thanks be to God for those who fought for better worker’s rights and conditions. And no doubt there are problems (from which most of us benefit) with labor abroad. However, there is a relationship between employers and employees that is wonderful and works well.
Now to answer Allan’s question about clarification. Again I’m not saying all taxation is stealing. In this instance a majority of American’s are asking the government to take money from someone else (the rich) to give them something (health care). That is the same as stealing. Additionally it is problematic because it something that is a lifetime “right.” I do not think the government should be offering lifetime assistance to anyone, except those extreme cases where it may be necessary. I’m all for fait taxation and paying my part. As I said in my first post, I have and growing up my family has taken advantage of governmental assistance when in times of need. Glad the government is willing to help those in need. But this reform, with the expectation that someone else will pay for it for you, is immoral, in my humble opinion.
Pam, that is exactly what I am saying. If you go to my blog and read my first post on this matter you will see that what started by ramblings here was a poll released that said a majority of Americans want the rich to pay for the health care reform.
It seems to me, reading between the lines of the AP story, that the principle behind the article is progressive taxation. Would we agree on that? I presume, then, that you think that progressive taxation is stealing?
Further, I don’t buy into the notion that the rich have gotten rich off the backs of “slave labor” or the “poor.”
The entire retail system (as one example) relies on an army of people earning minimum wage. Try providing healthcare to your family on minimum wage.
Again I’m not saying all taxation is stealing.
I totally accept that you may not intend to say that but I think that, de facto you are saying that.
Do correct my logic but I think if one does not think that taxation necessarily constitutes stealing, then the only question is which services should be paid for by taxation. It's one thing to say "I don't think medical care should be paid for by taxation". It's quite a different matter to claim that provision of this one service constitutes stealing where provision of education or fire fighting does not constitutes stealing.
I think that the Federal government is going to, again, kill flies with a bazooka. The problems, as I understand it, were:
* controlling the rise of costs
* reforming some areas like coverage for pre-existing conditions
* insuring the uninsured.
.....
Do I think that the entire medical insurance industry in the US needs to be taken over by the Federal government? No, this is massive overreach (as usual) to solve the problems listed above.
I agree with both of these statements but would add the following comments:
1) I don't think that there is a consensus about insuring the uninsured as witnesses by the post on "stealing".
This is actually my big bug-bear with the whole issue: that we have a social consensus that earning money is the goal of our society and that it takes priority over the health and life of our citizens.
2) I don't think that having the entire healthcare industry taken over by the Federal government is a good idea either.
However, I wonder how we get social change in the face of a system where costs and prices are out of control and where profits are King and patients are peasants. In the UK, the market price of privately purchased healthcare insurance and healthcare services is far below the cost in the US, I think primarily because the system has been run for the health of patients rather than for the wealth-increase of shareholders.
It probably is using a bazooka to do the job of a shotgun. But our society has proven time and time again that it is not willing to use the shotgun and maybe we need to be hit by a bazooka.
It's interesting that one group thinks its the poor who are complacent and entitled. It looks to me more like it is those who don't understand the true cost and worth of the healthcare that they don't pay for directly who are complacent and entitled.
PamBG: It's interesting that one group thinks its the poor who are complacent and entitled.
I think the whole society largely feels entitled - not just the poor. I see it in my 16 year old daughter - she expects to be "just given" things that when I was her age - 41 years ago - I expected to have to earn and work for.
A couple of posts I love to look at on political issues are both by J. Budziszewski from First Things a while back. They were "The Problem with . . .":
- ". . . Conservatism"; and
- ". . . Liberalism"
In the "Conservativism" article see the 7th error - Mammonism; and the 8th - Meritism. In the "Liberalism" article see the the 1st error - Propitiationism; and the 2nd error - Expropriationism.
I think all of that is at play in this debate - and it all shows, IMO, that Christians have to stand outside the rampant Constantinianism of the Church and ask what the responsibilities of the Body of Christ are to Christ and the Kingdom of God.
If the 75% of the country that calls itself Christian had simply taken care of the "least of these" - we wouldn't be debating the most massive increase in the power of the Federal government in US history.
If the 75% of the country that calls itself Christian had simply taken care of the "least of these" - we wouldn't be debating the most massive increase in the power of the Federal government in US history.
Agreed.
Constantinianism isn't the only problem here. The other problem is our absolute and utter worship of money and profits.
Why, why, why is pooling-of-risk for profits moral but pooling-of-risk for social good immoral? Why is the former ethically good and the latter "Constantinianism"?
(By the way - hint, hint - the pooling-of-risk for social good doesn't have to be done by any government. It's just that our society is so deeply hypnotized by the pursuit of profits that we can't even see the possibility of operating a large private venture on a not-for-profit basis.)
I will add that I am NOT saying that it is just the poor who feel entitled. That is what they original survey showed and really gets under my skin. I don't mind giving help a family in need or even the government taxing to help a family in need for teh short term. i bugs me that this is for everyone forever paid for by someone else.
If i pax taxes to my community I expect good road and good government and good schools. If i pay taxes to the feds, I expect that money will be spent on things that need to be supported, including a responsible welfare system. But this isn't what is being debated here.
PamBG:
By the way - hint, hint - the pooling-of-risk for social good doesn't have to be done by any government. It's just that our society is so deeply hypnotized by the pursuit of profits that we can't even see the possibility of operating a large private venture on a not-for-profit basis
This is capitalism. You may of course pool risk for social good in order as a non-profit venture - but unless it is government that comes up with the venture capital to fund the startup of the enterprise, then you either have to have your own capital to invest; or convince others to invest without possibility of return.
The government has always been the venture funding source for non-profit businesses because it has a source of capital - taxes - that do not require return on investment.
This is capitalism.
I'm not sure what your point is? Am I supposed to be a knee-jerk opponent of anything to do with capitalism?
I think I've said ad nauseum (well, I'm getting sick of it anyway *grin*) that I'm opposed to running a healthcare system on the basis of profits before people.
You may of course pool risk for social good in order as a non-profit venture - but unless it is government that comes up with the venture capital to fund the startup of the enterprise, then you either have to have your own capital to invest; or convince others to invest without possibility of return.
Wow, what a good idea. Christians have capital. Many institutional churches and synagogues have capital. An insurance company could be set up on a not-for-profit basis with a charter aimed at diverting the majority of profit growth into policy-holder benefits. (Caveat: I'm not an expert on health insurance.) The not-for profit insurance company(ies) could lobby providers - hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies - when prices are raised exorbitantly.
I realize that the problem is more multi-faceted than just insurance companies, but this is a start.
It's all doable. The problem is that, as a society and as Christians, what we really really believe in is the growth of profits. And we do believe that the growth of profits takes precedence over the health of human beings. This is evident in our actions.
(By the way, I think that capitalism is probably the least worst way of running - administering - an economy. But it stinks as a moral philosophy and it doesn't need to be a moral philosophy.)
"Just for clarification, I am not suggesting that taxes are stealing, but that the expectation that the rich will pay for MY health care (or anything) is the same as stealing or at least hiring someone to steal for you."
rich people's taxes also pay for the roads we use, fund schools that teach our children - or someone else's children, and hospitals where sick uninsured people clog ERs, pay farmers to plant tobacco and for stop smoking campains, school lunch programs, for congress members pay and benefits, the list is endless.
There is never going to be a "right way" to fund health care, but I still think it is the right thing to do.
just a small thought in a big issue about taxes.
We seem to be assuming that taxes equal income taxes.
But there are more kinds of taxes that we pay---sales tax is one that people in the bottom 50% also pay whenever they have money to buy something.
There are also property taxes and a variety of surcharges and fees.
The system is tremendously complicated, but to look at only a portion distorts the picture.
KG:
A good reminder.
Allan, you asked me about the low and sometimes nonexistence of income tax for the poorest folk in our nation. That is true in a limited fashion. The poor pay social security tax on 100% of income. Wealthy folks pay ss up to 70,000 and then do not pay the tax. Our problems with SS would end if the wealthy paid the same rate that the poor do. All other taxes and fees are paid at the same or higher rates. What I grow weary of is the notion that somehow the rich are being asked to carry the burden of poor. The wealthy made the money here. The wealthy have a system of taxation and financial policy that is rewarding them hugely, and then they complain about people stealing from them or punishing them for success. In 1970 the top 1% of the nation held 20% of this nations wealth. Today that same 1% controls 40% of this nations wealth. When we want to tax the wealthy it is called redistribution of wealth. When the wealthy gain double their money in 30 or 40 years we call it success. Redistribution has already occurred and it is bad for the majority of people in this nation. Our system is set up to funnel money to fewere and fewer people. This is not in the best interest of the nation. I do not want the wealthy to be personally harmed, but how much is enough for you? Will the wealthy be satisfied when they control all the money in the US? Shall the rest of the people in the country work for script and buy our goods at the company store? Should we value human beings based upon what they can earn the wealthy? We have been here before and it was not good then.
Bruce
Bruce,
You completely missed my question. I was not asking about the very wealthy, although I would be interested in asking what you would do with them and their money. What I was asking you to respond to was all the small business owners who are not incredibly wealthy, but who do provide most of the jobs in this country, and who are getting squeezed in such a way that is not good for the expansion of their business and thus the employment situation.
Good points from Rev. Roberts. And I don't believe in a forced socialism either.
However I see nation-states as akin to kings of old who were called shepherds. They were to be kings for their people, and both correcting justice, as well as justice in general were important in their administration of their domain.
Societies will be judged according to their treatment of each other. Humans do have inherent individual rights because they're made in God's image (I'm reading a good book by Nicholas Wolterstorff on this: "Justice: Rights and Wrongs"). If America guarantees the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- then affordable health care I would think should be made available to all.
And I'm willing to pay out more and perhaps have less if everyone can have such access.
The church helping the poor is another important matter, and there will always be those in need, regardless.
On the issues now, I'm for the public option, but along with that they need to work on getting medical costs under control.
It communicates important entrepreneurial management practices, such as how your venture will mitigate risk, and how your venture will manage uncertainty. Most importantly, new business venturing is now about focusing on creating sustainable value. jimmy
info@ibowtech.com
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment