Personal Transportation Reform

The federal government must immediately adopt legislation to provide a reliable, late-model automobile for every U.S. citizen and resident.

1. To do so would create jobs. Imagine how many Americans could go to work to produce the new cars that the government would have to purchase!

2. It would help to reduce the deficit. After all, we now own General Motors. Anything that increases car sales by the government car company would necessarily bring in lots of money to reduce the deficit.

3. You should hear the sad stories of Americans who do not have reliable transportation! These people are stranded. They can't go to the grocery store. You just can't survive in most of America today without a dependable car.

4. Health care depends upon it. All of the insurance in the world is worthless if you can't get to your doctor. Also, we're having to pay for the unnecessary utilization of ambulances and helicopters by people who can't get to the hospital on their own because they don't have a reliable car. For some of these people whose health problems make it difficult for them to drive themselves, it would likely save us a great deal of money if we also provided them with a full-time chauffeur.

5. Providing a new car for everyone is vital to Interstate Commerce. I long ago lost count of the number of people seeking financial assistance from our church who couldn't keep a job because they didn't have dependable personal transportation. The productivity of the nation is hampered by our heartless system that denies personal transportation to millions of people.

6. Automobile costs have skyrocketed out of control! Some vehicles cost over $50,000 these days. People are plunged into debt just to try to provide transportation for their families. The government could buy in bulk and get the same low, low costs that they achieve in defense contracts.

7. A car for every American represents the culmination of the dream that our parents and grandparents had for us.

All of the cars should be blue. Dark blue. Turn signals will operate only to the left.

Health Care Reform and Religious Imperatives

Liberal pastors are pulling out all of the stops in their advocacy for socialized medicine. I was recently reading The Houston Chronicle's article concerning a group of liberal pastors being used by the Democrat Party to push for President Obama's beleaguered health care initiative.

The messages from these pastors, like most messages of liberal economic policies, confuse a basic ethical principle: For me to be generous with my money is laudatory and most Christian; for me to be generous with somebody else's money is neither, but is mere theft and is condemned in the Bible. The generous Christian impulse of being generous with our own money led Christians throughout our nation to start hospitals and other health care initiative in days gone by. What passes today for the "moral imperative" of "health care reform" in the plans of President Obama can be entirely summarized as covetousness for the resources of others.

Why I, Not We, Must Ration Health Care

The infamous Peter (A-Three-Toed-Sloth-Has-More-Rights-Than-Your-Newborn) Singer has been favored by the New York Times with a lengthy Op-Ed today entitled “Why We Must Ration Health Care.” Would that he had written it in 1965, so that our forefathers could have read it before first turning down this broad road leading to socialized medicine (the destination of which is just coming into sight).

As you read Singer's article, I believe you'll soon note that his argument in favor of health care rationing is flawless. The rabbinic philosophy which he cited in the article, he also soundly refuted. Health care absolutely must be rationed.

What Singer has not addressed is the more pertinent and important question: Not whether health care should be rationed, but WHO should do the rationing?

I believe that I should do the rationing. I should be entitled to all of the health care that I'm willing to fund out of my own pockets. I should be entitled to all of the insurance that I can afford and wish to purchase. Beyond my insurance coverage, I should be entitled to all of the health care for which I am willing to write a (non-bouncing) check. Some people will not be able to afford basic health care for themselves, and I should be entitled to decide whether I would like to help them or not. I should be constrained in my decisions by the compassionate example of Christ, which will compel me to give generously to help the infant born with a defective heart, but will likely not lead me to fund a Viagra prescription for anyone.

I support the HealthSaver formula of combining a High Deductible Health Plan with a Health Savings Account (see more about this option here or here). The best thing about this medical option, in my opinion, is the fact that it puts decisions about the rationing of my health care right where they belong—in my hands. My insurance does what insurance exists to do: It protects me from being destroyed financially by a calamity. My HSA money is money that I use either to save for a rainy day or to spend on medical care today. To decide which I'm going to do, I ration my health care. Before I go to the doctor, I ask myself, "Is this really worth spending my money?" Before I fill a prescription, I ask myself, "Maybe I should wait a day or two and see whether I feel better on my own before I spend money on an antibiotic?" Sometimes I spend the money; sometimes I don't. It depends upon how my own rationing decision works out.

And by the way—about that Health Savings Account—my health insurance has given me $2,829.61 in the last three years, all of which is socked away in a Money Market account and a Bond Fund. Furthermore, I haven't spent a penny out-of-pocket for health care in three years (the "pocket" not including my Health Savings Account, which is extra money I wouldn't have under any other plan). Switching to the HealthSaver 2800 was the best financial decision I've made in a long time.

Many of us will want insurance coverage that provides extensive coverage for major unforeseeable injuries and disorders that could affect us or our families. As those in charge of our own health-care rationing, we negotiate with insurers, shop around for coverage, and decide how much we're willing to pay extra for how much extra coverage.

This is not a perfect system, but neither is it the worst possible outcome. I can't think of a system with better appeal, personally. The only area in which the Big Brother system can tout its superiority over the free market is with regard to providing health care for the deserving poor. But the free market system can address that need as well, when it is populated by the compassionate and generous. And apart from the compassion and generosity of individuals, any system is doomed to failure.

That's one reason why I favor free enterprise so much. It cultivates compassion and generosity. In the free enterprise system, people know that those who have fallen down will not be able to get up unless I help them. I am motivated to show compassion and give generously. But if I have fallen for the lie that it is somebody else's job to help—the government's job—then I have delegated away the tasks of compassion and generosity (as well as administering a death-blow to gratitude on the part of the recipient) and can comfortably look the other way. "The government has programs for that."

Certainly I am more comfortable with making my own decisions about health-care rationing than I am with putting those decisions into the hands of the Federal Government or (may God protect us all!) into the hands of Peter Singer. There will be little compassion and generosity in either case. But between the two of them, at least Singer is being honest. Socialized medicine will always involve bureaucratic rationing of health care. We need to read Singer's article and think long and hard before our government steals away from us the ability to make our most critical and private decisions for ourselves.

In summary, I provide three reasons why I, not we, must ration health care:

1. Because rationing is ultimately a moral question, and we cannot trust utilitarians like Peter Singer nor the Federal Government to make such moral decisions. If they advise that a severely disabled fetus should be aborted, what rationing decision will they make about extending treatment to such a child if the mother rejects their opinion on moral grounds and bring the baby to term?
2. Because the tendency of people toward selfishness—toward over-valuing one's own life—has not been demonstrated historically to pose nearly the problem that has been inflicted upon humanity by the tendency of governments to under-value the lives of people. Strange as it may seem, people often courageously put aside their own needs and value their own comfort below the needs of others. Ask the disabled veteran. Ask the good mother. Ask the first-responders of September 11. Government? Put the needs of others ahead of its own needs? I'll let my good readers cite all of the examples of that phenomenon that they find in history.
3. Because the shift of rationing away from the individual and toward the insurance company and the government has contributed greatly to the increase of health care costs that threatens us today so much.

For all of these reasons, and more, let us avoid Peter Singer's solution and ration our own health care.

On Health Care Reform

I hear very little public conversation from Southern Baptist pastors on the question of health care reform, although it seems to be a major topic in our culture. I can surmise good reasons why we do not opine frequently and loudly on this issue:

1. Pastors have a sense that they are not qualified to speak about the nuances of health care, since these discussions often wander into jargon pretty quickly.

2. “Health care reform” is a topic likely to be divisive in any congregation that contains people from two or more of the following categories: employers, employees, government workers, medical practitioners, unemployed people, retirees. That's every congregation that I know, so pastors who aren't looking for yet another controversy are likely to remain mute on the question of health care reform.

3. The question of health care reform has become politicized, and therefore many pastors will perceive a danger of seeming to be affiliated with one political party or another based upon what they might say about health care.

In rebuttal, I would like to offer several reasons why pastors might want to try to form and publish an opinion on the matter of health care reform:

1. Intermingled with the biological, legal, and technological aspects of the discussion about health care reform are several profound moral questions. What level of health care do I as a Christian owe to my neighbor? As one whose citizenship is in Heaven, how much is it moral for me to take away from strangers in an effort to live on longer in this world? Who has the responsibility to provide for the care of my parents? For my children? Do we as pastors really find ourselves unable to address these questions for our congregations? Can we really say that these questions are irrelevant to the faith?

2. Sickness and death are prominent themes in the Bible and as pastors we have a responsibility to call people to a healthy biblical worldview regarding these issues as well as others. Whenever we have a health care discussion, we're really having a sickness and death discussion. Have our people accepted the fact that they are going to face death, and probably sickness as well? Is it not a matter of discipleship to cultivate in them a faith that survives that realization?

3. Money is another prominent theme in the Bible. What are just ways to earn it and just ways to spend it? If I spend $500,000 to extend my life by three days, is that good stewardship? If I spend $12,000 per year in order to have a health insurance plan that will subsidize my elective surgeries, is that good stewardship? What percentage of our Gross Domestic Product is it good stewardship for us to spend on drugs and procedures and tests? What if I am spending not my money, but somebody else's? Does that change things? Surely God has something to say about these questions.

4. The Bible strongly commends generosity. What is the role of charity in health care? Is the Bible silent to guide us in considering these questions?

It seems to me that this debate is in desperate need of the input of people precisely like Southern Baptist pastors, at least to place before people some of the clear teachings of the Bible to consider as we address foundational questions underlying our opinions about health care related issues.