If God Were A Congressman

This morning the Pastor at our church brought up the recent health care debate thusly:

“A friend came up to me this morning and asked ‘So what do you think about the health care vote yesterday.'”

It was clearly a loaded question, the Pastor explained.

His reply was that he would respond with a God-centered perspective. Every person, every life in this country is precious; sacred. “Our health care system should reflect that.” He said further that he didn’t know how it should be managed or paid for but that is how he believes we should be approaching this issue.

…and I found myself agreeing with him in principal, although I’m not sure he believes government is the answer or not.

Is there a way to look at this debate from a “What Would God Do?” perspective?

I would not presume to know what God would think and recognize that many of you don’t even believe that God exists.

I do believe that individuals and families should have access to quality health care in America and should have a choice as to where they buy insurance to protect them against catastrophe, and how much of that risk they are comfortable retaining. They should have a choice as to where they seek care and from whom.

While I believe it is inevitable that all citizens be required to carry some form of health insurance, I believe they should have more choice as to where they obtain it, not less, and without regard to where they work. For those times that they are not able to afford it temporarily due to unemployment or being unemployable, the government should provide a backup and help those that can’t help themselves.

So far I think most Americans would agree with me and would deem it common sense. Believe in God or not, most would agree government should have a benevolent and responsible role in health care. Where Americans find themselves divided is how to get us there.

I believe God helps those that help themselves and expects us as individuals to help those that can’t. Teach a man to fish and if he can’t, give him one.  If we all lived this way, much of our federal government would find itself out of a job.

As for health care, creating incentives and removing barriers is or should be the conservative approach. Private enterprise has a way of filling a vacuum if it is allowed to do so. After all, there certainly is a demand for quality health care, and people are willing to reasonably pay for it. That sounds like the preamble of any good business plan.

But liberals would say that the private enterprise system has failed here and it is time for a benevolent government to wrest control. They offer more of what broke the system (and many others) in the first place.

If Congress cares so much about Americans, their health care and actually improving it, why is there such a rush to ram it through the legislative system?

Why are they not recognizing who they serve and honoring the promise to allow legislators and the public time to read and understand the bill?

Why are they lying about how many people are uninsured by choice?

Why is the trillion-dollar burden not borne by everyone equally, and not skewed for political bias?

Why is Congress exempt from the plan?

If there are such savings to be gained why does it cost a trillion dollars more than the current system?

Liberals think that an ever-growing government is the only means by which to effect change on any front.

The fact that many Americans don’t have health insurance or access to quality care is not a function of a lack of government intervention rather a result of too much of it.

Government has so regulated the industry such that most Americans have their health care choices made for them by their employer, who has the ability to choose from only a few insurance companies and thus care providers in each state.

If insurance carriers have been allowed to dictate to doctors and patients, have failed to cover preexisting conditions, while at the same time jacking up costs and profits, it isn’t due to a lack of regulation, rather a lack of competition because of over-regulation.

As I have said before, don’t blame the free market system when the market isn’t free.

A truly free market would force insurance companies and health care providers to vie for consumer health care dollars on the basis of coverage, quality and cost, just like auto insurance, which is also required by law.

Beyond that, a compassionate, benevolent (and mostly God-fearing) citizenry would see the mutual benefit of a federal government that takes care of those that legitimately can’t take care of themselves.

But what about those that can help themselves and choose not to? What would God say to this? For example, you don’t exercise, you eat too much, and you smoke or take drugs?

Does God expect us to pay the wages of our sins, or does he call for a benevolent government to transfer those burdens to others? That is admittedly also a loaded question and the answer is clear.

The current bill says that the government will not allow private and public insurance companies to penalize you for the higher burden you will eventually be to the system.

I think God would expect you to pay the wages of your ill-chosen behavior. I think God would expect you to take care not to be a burden to your neighbor. I think God expects you to live your life with others in mind.

God would have voted against this bill.

7 thoughts on “If God Were A Congressman

  1. Roosh wondered “Does God expect us to pay the wages of our sins?”. The wages of sin is death, and for a Christian that debt has been paid. The wages of increased government is more government, and the end of that is slavery. Which is worse?

  2. We are not talking about food, here. There is not enough ‘health care’ to go around. If the government takes control of this, some bureaucrat — who believes that job one is to as unaccountable as possible — will be making the decision about what is, in his view, better. Another year for grandma or fix that crippled kid’s leg.
    The government is not the entity that should be making those kind of decisions.

  3. Roosh comments, “God would have voted against this bill.”

    THis is perhaps the most supremely arrogant thing ever to be posted on this blog, and that’s quite a statement.

    It is also, without question, the most heretical thing you could possibly utter – to pretend to know the mind of God is, well, let’s just say you’re nothing more than a Pharisee.

    I suggest you read Matthew 25.

  4. It’d only be “arrogant” if he didn’t make a case for it. Since “making the case” is what the whole post is, the word you’re looking for is “contentious”.

    And since the conclusion is the result of an ethical case logically constructed from elements of Christian that are, if not universally, at least broadly accepted, and that inference is perfectly clear, it’s not sacrilege; Roosh is not impersonating the Almighty, merely making a logical case based on things His believers commonly believe.

    You could try to attack the logic, if you’d like.

    Or you could cry “sacrilege” like some Spanish Inquisitor, hell-bent on insitutionalizing ignorance (which is the course you’ve taken).

    Do yourself a favor; try the other way.

  5. Penigma, you shouldn’t mess with theology. You don’t know what you are talking about.
    God could cure every disease that afflicts mankind if He chose to do so.
    God does not need to act through human agents. He needs nothing at all.
    If A takes money from B against B’s will to give to C (for a worthy cause), who gains virtue?

  6. THis is perhaps the most supremely arrogant thing ever to be posted on this blog, and that’s quite a statement.
    This is the perhaps the most hilarious unintentional satire ever posted on this blog, considering the source.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.