v'ܩ Here’s Why Christians Don’t Want Government Health Care
Home > Health Care > Here’s Why Christians Don’t Want Government Health Care

Here’s Why Christians Don’t Want Government Health Care

March 28th, 2010

We can do a better job taking care of people than the government does. It is that simple. I was reading something the other day, and the argument the guy was making is that lots of Christians are Republicans so we should be in favor of health care. “We are helping lots of people by giving them free health care, if you were really a Christian you would be for government health care.”

Well, I am a Christian, but I am not for government health care. You know why? Because I think I can do a better job helping people with my money than the government can. The government waste so much money it is unbelievable. They actually spend more money on the bureaucracy and paperwork of reimbursing travel expenses in a year, than they do on the travel expenses. And the number is in the billions. Efficiency at its finest. That is pathetic.

Every government program is fraught with waste. Each of the entitlement programs we have make people lazier and lazier. If I can get the government to take care of me, what is the point of actually working and being productive myself. These entitlement programs aren’t “helping” anybody. They are just making people wards of the state.

So no, I do not want government health care. I do want to help people though, and so I give money to people who are doing real good in this world. People who are going on mission trips to Haiti to help ease the suffering. My church that feeds homeless people and reaches out to prisoners and drug addicts. These are good uses of my money. They waste far less and do much more good than the government does.

Here’s a little graphic to prove my point. It ranks states by their “generosity index” of each of the states, and next to it who they voted for in the Bush - Kerry election. The generosity index compares average charitable giving to average gross income.

Do you see a trend? That is why Christians can say they don’t want government health care and not be hypocrites. If you are really concerned about helping people, go and help people. Don’t try to make the government do it, because they are really bad at it.

Author: Derek Clark Categories: Health Care Tags:
  1. March 28th, 2010 at 19:23 | #1

    While you are most probably correct that individuals are going to be more efficient than the government, how could you ever ensure that people received the treatment that they need based on the good will financing of individuals? The generosity index that you cite does indicate that money is being donated, but the question is to which causes? If the states you highlight have a higher percentage of religious involvement, their funding could simply be going toward keeping the churches in tip top shape and church outreach projects to increase the number of followers. There is no direct translation to health funding simply from that chart.

  2. March 28th, 2010 at 20:19 | #2

    While I agree that the charitable giving isn’t necessarily going to health funding, the point is the government is full of waste. It is also an entitlement program that we simply don’t have the money for. While giving everyone health care is a noble goal for sure, in practice it just doesn’t work.

    Our current system, while it has its problems, is the best in the world. Other countries have tried and failed with socialistic health care, what makes anyone think it will work here? Our system is the best in the world because of the free market. If you take that away it will not be the best in the world anymore.

  3. March 28th, 2010 at 22:55 | #3

    If we can do so much better than an impersonal bureaucracy, why do so many Christians want insurance?

    The Amish handle their health care costs through charitable giving, and in fact, for that reason, they are exempt from the new law.

    This isn’t socialistic health care. This is a law requiring you to insure yourself, so that you don’t end up costing the rest of us a bundle when you file bankruptcy, or you refuse to pay your emergency room bill.

    That’s not to say that charitable giving isn’t powerful. That’s why we pay for the Interstate Highway System by selling cookies door to door, and pay for our wars by running telethons.

  4. March 29th, 2010 at 00:06 | #4

    I’m actually not quite as opposed to the mandatory health insurance as most conservatives. I agree that paying for the emergency room costs sucks. However, it does concern me in 2 ways. First, I’m not really sure it is constitutional. Second, I think this is just a stepping stone to socialistic health care. It was far too big a jump for them to pull off here, but once we are at this point it would be much easier in the future.

    The real problem for me is that this creates another entitlement system. You think paying for emergency room visits for uninsured people is bad, wait until they are all covered under government subsidies. Check this out to see what I’m referring to - http://geekpolitics.com/9-patients-6-years-2700-emergency-room-visits/

  5. March 29th, 2010 at 03:21 | #5

    You need to actually read the law. (It’s not 2000+ pages like Boehner was claiming, it’s only 906 pages.)

    You’re right; demanding that people buy insurance may not be constitutional. States get around that with auto insurance by allowing people to self-insure. For instance, in Pennsylvania, if you don’t want to buy auto insurance, you can post $50,000 cash with PennDOT to guarantee payment instead of buying insurance. I think there should be an option that someone post a cash bond with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to cover any medical expenses that might crop up. I suppose $5 million might be adequate.

    I’m a conservative from way back. There weren’t many of us supporting Barry in 1964. I’m very much in favor of people having the entitlement of paying their own health insurance costs. And we already have socialistic health care; it’s called Medicare. I’ve been on it for 14 years now, and I find doctors love it.

    With private insurance, they’re not sure what’s covered and what isn’t, and they keep having to submit forms over and over because the insurance companies employ giant staffs organized to delay and/or deny payments. I had group health before under a number of companies - Lincoln, Aetna, Banker’s Life, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, HealthGuard - and without exception, it was a pain in the butt to deal with them.

    A conservative sticks with what’s working, and avoids fixing what isn’t broken. Private health insurance is broken, and Medicare isn’t. We should have just lowered the age for Medicare to birth, charging the folks under 65 an unsubsidized rate.

  6. March 29th, 2010 at 10:12 | #6

    I agree that it is broken for sure, but Medicare is bankrupt as soon as the baby boomers retire in force in a few years. It may have worked out nicely for you, that doesn’t mean it is sustainable and it certainly doesn’t mean it is scalable to everyone.

    Remember, all those under 65 people are already paying for your Medicare. Just like Social Security, it is a Ponzi Scheme. We are paying now in hopes that some poor schmuck will pay us when we get old. Actually I’m paying now because I’m forced to, but you get the point.

  7. Roger Biggs
    April 15th, 2010 at 10:08 | #7

    Good to see south carolina, mississippi, and louisiana so high on that list. they are about the most UNHEALTHY states in the union. so much for the church charity. Isn’t that was Eric Cantor said to a lady in a town hall? if the medical bills get you into a home foreclosure situation, the suggestion from Mr. Cantor would be to ask your neighbours and church for some help? dignified.

  8. April 28th, 2010 at 05:22 | #8

    I want the government to butt out of business and our lives. I don’t need them to make laws telling me to wear my seat belt, or wear helmets when I ride a bicycle…. I’m a grown up, I’m not stupid. I can make these decisions myself. Personal responsibility. I certainly don’t want them telling me where and when I can see a doctor, or what procedures I can or cant get. Anyone that trusts the federal government is naive. I want lower taxes, not higher taxes. Obama is taxing everything on this planet. It’s his war on prosperity. The democrats are out to destroy everything that is American.


    great site btw. I will bookmark it.

  9. Thomas
    June 22nd, 2010 at 14:58 | #9

    I have not seen that private enterprize has done such a marvelous job of taking care of health care for the citizens of the US. If Insurance companies had done what they are supposed to do, take care of the medical issues based on a reasonable premium and a reasonable profit for the company, all would be probably well. But private insurance companies never seem to have enough profit. So they have forced the government to step in. If the blame goes anywhere it is squarely on the insurance companies.

  10. Al
    October 8th, 2010 at 16:47 | #10

    Christians are supposed to live by the “all things common” of Acts 2:44. This is not sharing all personal possessions at all times. It is that if my brother is hungry, my kitchen is open to him. If he is unclothed, my clothes closet is open to him. If his house burns down, I help build him another.
    But the insurance mindset has replaced the brotherly love mindset. Now it’s be ye warmed and filled, and go thy way. (James 2:16) Oh? You didn’t have insurance? You neglectful reprobate! You put what should have been paid in insurance premiums into the collection plate? Too bad.
    The Amish, conservative Mennonites, Hutterites and a few others believe and behave in the help one another system. Everyone else does just like the “unbelievers.”
    What is insurance but a yoking with unbelievers? (II Corinthians 6:14-17)
    Further, insurance companies are part of the usury-banking system. Your premiums go into that where they are loaned out at usury. Every mention of usury in the Bible ranges from unfavorable to condemned.

  11. Peter Wolfe
    December 15th, 2010 at 09:20 | #11

    I’m personally on the verge of turning christian myself with my local RCIA for catholics in eastern Alabama and find many christians and institutions heavily biased on therepublican side. Face the facts that we live in a ever diversifying nation with social demographics changing with hindus, muslims, atheists, pagans, etc part of the mix in this solution as well. Who would cover their poor? The other thing to save the poor to do what is right as said in Matthew on taking care of the sick is to approve of a higher quality of health care without a doubt. Socialized medicine might not be that but certainly the churches have let down the poor in thier own ranks in part cause nobody tythes much anymore. Only 1.5% of catholics and 3% of protestants on average according to adherence.com and Christian Today Magazines except for the abnormal numbers in both with the middle class donating less and less on average.
    Wait a second when someone was talking about Obama as his stimumulus gave tax cuts and soon probably will extend them. Nobody knows how much of these health problems are gnetical or the envionrment cause of hte limited time in investigating them. Maybe its time for the economics to fundamentally change like the less emphasis on middle class people to upper class living in segergaed societies in only housed in areas like the pharisees? The economic model has destroyed dignity and respect of prolife scauses. My proposal perhaps out of some ignorance is to phase out Social Security for a federal admendment to the Constitution o health care for all american citizens. Socil Security will keep the legitament disabled like the blind and mentally infirmed of the board and unemployment with food stamps strictly enforced. Moreover, military spending cuts with teacher pentitions as well to be cut wih all forms of double dipping cut. I think this should satisifiy everyone involved in my opinion. Perhaps I’m wrong?

  12. Al
    December 15th, 2010 at 13:01 | #12

    Peter Wolfe:
    “… the churches have let down the poor in thier own ranks in part cause nobody tythes much anymore. Only 1.5% of catholics and 3% of protestants on average according to adherence.com and Christian Today Magazines except for the abnormal numbers in both with the middle class donating less and less on average.”
    The government, federal, states & local, take the tithe, and a lot more. Certainly we have to have government, as mankind has long proven our inability to govern ourselves reliably. But much that is done by-through government is in reality community projects.
    Never forget that everything that government does is paid for by taxes of one sort or another, all collected by distraint (taking by force or threat).
    Christians donate to their churches and benevolent voluntarily, not under threat of violence.
    Muslims and Jews have alms for the poor as part of their religious systems. I do not know much of Hindus, and atheists are on their own unless they can be humble enough to ask their Christian neighbors for help.

    Roger Biggs:
    “… the suggestion from Mr. Cantor would be to ask your neighbours and church for some help? dignified.”
    “Dignified?” What’s dignified about using the government, which is the sheriff and his gunmen, to extract funding from my neighbors for my benefit?
    Often neighbors (people of one’s community) and fellow Christians WANT to help. It’s called “brotherly love.”

  13. Al
    December 15th, 2010 at 13:05 | #13

    Harl Delos:
    “For instance, in Pennsylvania, if you don’t want to buy auto insurance, you can post $50,000 cash with PennDOT to guarantee payment instead of buying insurance.”
    Rather than requiring periodic payments to private insurance companies, why can’t the state maintain a fund that bonds individual motorists or vehicles? Assessments could then be set on an actuarial basis to maintain that fund.

  14. December 16th, 2010 at 00:20 | #14

    Al, you don’t even need the state to set up such a program.

    Gather together a bunch of friends, and set up a mutual insurance company that offers assessment health insurance. A mutual is owned by the group that is insured, not by outside investors. Assessment means that when one of the group has a claim, they notify the organization, the organization sends out postcards to everybody telling them that their share of the claim is $X, and they pay the actual costs.

    Setting it up so that you send notices by email and electronically debit members’ bank accounts for assessments would make it a lot more workable. Most providers will give a significant discount for cash, so if you give group members drafts to use to pay their medical expenses, you could save appreciable money.

    If you have 50 people in your group, and 3 of them happen to need $100,000 operations at once, that means everyone in the group gets 3 bills for $2,000, one right after another. Many people can’t cough up $6,000 in sudden expense, so you’ll want to do business with a reinsurance company to cover part of the risk - perhaps a $50,000 monthly deductible policy covering group health, so nobody has to come up with more than $1,000 in a given month. To cover the cost of the reinsurance and the cost of running the central office, you’ll need to have an assessment for the group members.

    Your state insurance commissioner, in fact, will probably insist on you having that reinsurance policy in place, but other than that, assessment programs appear to be legal in all 50 states, and appear to meet the mandated coverage requirements of the federal law.

    What you do need is trust. Most assessment companies these days are rural mutuals that offer fire and storm coverage for barns, that sort of thing. Farmers can’t easily pick and move in the middle of the night, and they all know each other, so there’s a lot of social pressure keeping them from welshing on their obligations. I imagine that you could set up a similar organization for members of a licensed profession, and it would work. I wouldn’t want to set up a program that accepted strangers who could easily relocate to where nobody knows them.

  15. Al
    December 16th, 2010 at 11:23 | #15

    This misses the point. State-mandated motor vehicle insurance (actually bonding) is not for the protection of the insured. It is for the protection of others who are damaged by the motor vehicle. It is compulsory so that every motor vehicle that is legally on the road is bonded. Allowing individuals to opt-out and to participate in a mutual bonding society (which may also provide insurance to its members) is OK, but unless it is nonprofit it will have to make a profit.
    Such societies are already in existence and they have to conform to the liability-insurance/bonding requirements of the state as enforced by the state insurance commission. Some of their reserve has to be “invested” in government bonds and some has to be invested in corporate stocks and bonds. Many who already participate in such mutual bonding, assessment-based, societies do so because they do not want to be connected with the moneylending and/or corporate world, taking the Biblical prohibitions of usury (”interest”) and non-yoking with unbelievers seriously.
    For the state to force motor vehicle owners to participate in a state bond fund takes the responsibility of participation out of the hands of the individual motor vehicle owner. The state, while keeping books showing the balance in the reserve fund would actually spend the bond tax revenues just like any other revenue in the state treasury, not buy government bonds or invest the assessments in corporate stocks and bonds. The state can always make good on its obligations as the state can collect more revenue at gunpoint. Just raise some tax or taxes.
    Of course, the idea would be that every motor vehicle owner would be assessed based on the characteristics of his(her) motor vehicle, on its use, and on the driving record(s) of the vehicle’s driver(s), according to well-established actuarial methods.
    As far as strangers disappearing and welshing, every state already requires every motor vehicle used on the public roads to have an insurance card on board.
    $1,000 assessment? My current motor vehicle policy costs $35/mo for considerably more than the state mandated minimum.

  16. December 17th, 2010 at 12:15 | #16

    If a mutual makes a profit, the profits go right back to the people paying the premiums, in effect reducing the premiums to tne no-profit level. But assessment insurance doesn’t make a profit; you are billed after the fact for the actual costs.

    The purpose of reserves is to pay claims if the premiums turn out to be inadequate. If those who are insured pay after the claim instead of in advance, the premiums aren’t inadequate, they are exactly adequate.

    It is very easy to drive a car without insurance; lots of people buy insurance in order to get plates, and then stop paying premiums. You’ve noticed the State Auto ads on TV? If you don’t have a current insurer, most companies don’t want your business, because they figure you’ll squirrel out on them, too, and it’s unprofitable for them to go through the hassle of underwriting you for one or two months’ premiums.

    There’s another big difference between auto and health. If you run into someone else, your victim’s medical bills are usually under $50K, or else they are dead, and in PA, to self-insure, it’s a $50K bond for the first vehicle, $10K for each additional. When it’s illness, rather than injuries, medical bills can easily hit a million. I know of a couple whose little girl hit 5 million by the time she was a year old, and she lived to the age of 5, so it was probably 15 or 20 million for her lifetime medical care. There aren’t very many of us who could post a $10 million deposit per person to cover medical bills.

  17. Al
    December 18th, 2010 at 11:37 | #17

    Harl: “It is very easy to drive a car without insurance; lots of people buy insurance in order to get plates, and then stop paying premiums.”
    Perhaps in your state. In some states the insurance company is required to notify the state if a policy lapses. And they do, too, for they are liable until the state receives the notice of lapse.
    Other states use the spot-check system. The DMV financial responsibility office sends out notices for the vehicle owner to send in a copy of his proof of current insurance.

    “You’ve noticed the State Auto ads on TV?”
    No. I haven’t watched TV in years.

    “If you don’t have a current insurer, most companies don’t want your business, because they figure you’ll squirrel out on them, too, and it’s unprofitable for them to go through the hassle of underwriting you for one or two months’ premiums.”
    If you will pay six months’ or a year’s premiums up front, most any company will write you.

    Certainly medical insurance is quite different from motor vehicle insurance. Its purpose is not to bond the policyholder against causing someone else to be sick or injured, but to protect the insured’s assets from the costs of medical care.

    Motor vehicle insurance is of three types:
    1. Liability - protects others from the policyholder’s vehicle’s driver’s negligence. This is all that is required by law.
    2. Insurance against under- or uninsured others’ negligent damages inflicted on the policyholder. Generally required to be offered but may be declined in many states.
    3. Insurance on the vehicle itself. Protects the assets of the policyholder from negligent or inadvertent damage to his own vehicle, from theft, and from fire and casualty. Required by moneylenders that have a lien on the vehicle.
    Additional insurances are common, such as towing, medical, etc.

    Why would any deposit be applicable to possible personal medical expenses? That would be a deposit for living.

  18. December 19th, 2010 at 03:45 | #18

    Self-insurance for autos only covers liability. The presumption is that a junkyard will tow away your car for the scrap metal value if you die broke in an accident you cause.

    If you get a highly-contagious highly-dangerous disease, and you aren’t treated, or you’ll give it to me. Therefore, I want you to either have insurance to cover the bills when you contract Lassa Fever or Ebola, or else have funds on deposit to cover them. In earlier decades, we simply locked you in your house to die, and put a big QUARANTINE sign out front. These days, we figure you ought not get a death sentence.

  19. Al
    December 19th, 2010 at 16:06 | #19

    You are describing a PUBLIC health matter, not a matter of personal injury or ordinary infection. Government has long taken whatever steps are considered necessary according to the current state of knowledge to curtail the spread of highly contagious fatal diseases. Governments did what they could (wasn’t much back then) to stop the spread of the Black Death (bubonic plage), leprosy, etc.
    Private insurance is not capable of dealing with the costs of epidemics any more than fire and casualty insurance is capable of dealing with war. Did the Japanese fire insurance companies pay for the damages resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombings and the fire bombing of many Japanese cities? If you read any fire/casualty insurance policy, you will find that not only damage from war, but from insurrections and riots are excluded from coverage.
    Few carry insurance sufficient to cover the cost of really severe, long-treated debilitating diseases. Ebola, however, kills so fast that the individual medical costs shouldn’t amount to much. Just funeral expense.

    Naturally, liability is all that self-insurance applies to. Self-insurance is no insurance at all. What it means is that the individual has sufficient assets that can be converted to enough cash to meet the state bonding requirement: such as $50,000. I carry no insurance on my car itself. I do carry liability, uninsured/underinsured, in excess of the state minimums and a small amount of hospitalization coverage. If my car is damaged and I cannot get the other party to pay for it, I have to absorb the loss. If I wreck it, I lose it.

  20. Brandon
    April 16th, 2012 at 13:31 | #20

    Hands down one of the worst arguments I have read for privatized health insurance coverage. You should rethink your argument quickly and then re post to save yourself the embarrassment of having actual people continue to read your nonsense.

    Not only do you have no point, but I’m just shocked to the bone that you’d post a red-blue map like the one above without considering the possibility that Democrats actually give to charity in the red states and on top of that fails to acknowledge why people don’t donate. 80% of our population shares 7% of America’s financial wealth while the other 20% enjoys 93%. Realistically, only 1/5 American’s has money to donate.

    I guess if I get cancer, under your policy I can go get some fine Christian help in Haiti… Wait, I need help with cancer here in America… You Sr. need to rethink your position.

  21. Joshua
    April 22nd, 2012 at 02:43 | #21

    “Generosity Index”???

    Dude you realize what that is, right? That is a list of how much a state spends on social welfare. The money COMES FROM TAXES, and all those red states SPEND MORE THAN THEY PUT IN! That’s right, you are showing that conservatives are the biggest welfare suckers of all. Wanna know why? Because they are all so stupid as to vote against their best interests. They will vote for a corporation to send their jobs to Mexico while waving a flag the whole time!

  22. April 28th, 2013 at 18:57 | #22

    I am sure this post has touched all the internet
    viewers, its really really nice post on building up new weblog.