I had someone make the following comment regarding William Lane Craig’s argument against Obama’s health care plan:
I agree that it should be us taking care of our brothers and we shouldn’t need the Government to do it for us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world and we are not doing it, so the idea of socialized healthcare intrigues me.
My response: I don’t see how noting that we live in a fallen world is an argument for socialized healthcare. The government is part of that fallen world too, so if it’s the fallen world that is to blame for us not taking care of others, how will the government do any better? That’s like saying, “hey, you’re kinda sketchy behind the wheel, so I’m gonna let my 105 year old grandma with cataracts drive the bus.”
In addition, will government’s involvement make it more or less likely that people will start caring for others? Less likely. The more of our own responsibilities we hand off to the government, the more we will start to see “caring for others” as “letting the government do it.” We will have less and less motivation to step up and do it ourselves, because the nanny state will be taking care of it (and doing a pretty mediocre job of taking care of it, I might add). This is one reason why institutions like the family are so weak in Europe–the ingrained nanny state mentality sucks the life out of bedrock social institutions. Obama’s healthcare plan will reinforce the trend, not change it for the better.
The state also has to pay for the responsibilities it takes over. That money will not only come from your pocket, but from your neighbor’s. So you want to pay for socialized healthcare? Fine, do that. But how can you call forcing your neighbor to pony up the cash “solidarity” or “me being my brother’s keeper”?
Finally, as Craig pointed out in his brief talk, Obama is making it harder for people in the upper tax brackets to give to charity. That shows his true colors right there. He’s not just passively letting our own selfishness consume our philanthropy; he’s actively trying to shrink it!
I’ve said all along that the legitimate concerns people have with our healthcare system (bringing insurance costs down, insuring everyone, making sure that insurance isn’t withdrawn at sketchy times) can easily be taken care of without going nuts and instituting the drastic changes of the Obama administration. It’s not even clear that Obama’s plan will knock out *any* of those concerns, aside from insuring everyone, in substantial ways. His current plan will be the cure that kills the patient (literally, in a way).
We want a full, robust concept of “being my brother’s keeper” to be alive and thriving in this country. That might not be happening right now as much as we want (then again, the charitable giving in the U.S swallows the giving from citizens of every other country…combined), but if we let Obama have his way, you can kiss that hope goodbye. Congress and the executive branch of our government can, indeed, help to reverse the trend. All they gotta do is get out of the way.
PS–on a related side note: how can healthcare be a right? It’s a benefit, people, not a right! There is a difference. The government’s role is to keep the peace, assure order, and get out of your way in your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. *You* pursue those things. The government does not give them to you. You have a right to the state protecting you from harm and protecting you from being blocked in your pursuit. You do not have a right to the state giving you services and benefits. Might be nice, yes (but if you take the moral argument I’ve been making seriously, perhaps not), but don’t trot out this nonsense of it being a right.
My friend didn’t make that comment, but it needs to be said still because rights language is being employed by the left way, way too much. It’s a sham.
