Tag Archives: Health-care

Commentary

Prayer is good, but reason and evidence are better

6 Comments

I spotted a post over at the Anchoress about the issue of prayer and abortion. She is discussing with a friend whether to pray in front of an abortion clinic, which takes a lot of courage. But I don’t think that’s the only way to make a difference on abortion. I want to remind my readers that you can pray and debate. I think both are necessary. And debate is just as Biblical as prayer.

The Anchoress writes about the importance of prayer:

If you stand outside an abortion mill and peacefully pray for everyone inside, the abortionists and their aides, the troubled women choosing to enter, the babies – you are truly moving outside of your own concerns, your own ego, and growing in knowledge of generosity and detachment. Will you save a few lives? Perhaps, if God wills it.

But perhaps the point of your calling is two-fold; to affect the lives of others in a positive way, yes, but also to affect your own life, if you are open and trusting enough to allow yourself to be instructed and changed, as I know you will be.

I am convinced that the abortion issue itself is meant to be the long, protracted, painful, divisive and enduring struggle it is, because it is a challenge to the entire age.

The Torah says, “who saves a life saves the world entire.” Our common-wisdom will sometimes say – over new laws, or new restrictions or new requirements – “well, but if it saves a single life, it’s worth it.” We do know the value of human life, we know it instinctively and intrinsically, because our own DNA shouts out “I am good; I am important and I want to live” with every breath we take, every heartbeat pumped and every new blood cell created. But some of us work against that knowledge, for a variety of reasons. Some of it is self-loathing. Some of it is faux enlightenment. Some of it is simple, stubborn, adolescent contrariness, writ large.

I agree with all of this, but I want to also emphasize the importance of debating with our opponents.

I tend towards more confrontational means, and so I wanted to link together some of my best posts on defending the pro-life position, and then make some comments. When it comes to abortion, I’m inclined to keep faith, emotions and personal experiences right out of the discussion and stick with the strict philosophical reasoning and pure science.

First, let me share with you the links:

And now the comment. I think we need to get serious about the way we talk about social issues like abortion, marriage and divorce. Some Christians are hiding from these discussions and resorting to prayer alone because they believe that these are issues that are too emotional to debate. But emotions and personal experiences are irrelevant to questions of truth and morality.

The reason why society as a whole is sliding leftwards on social issues is because we wrongly believe that there is a fundamental split between facts and values. We believe in objective truth over here, as in chemistry and physics. And we believe in religious and moral truth over there, as in the existence of God and the sanctity of life. We need to halt the slide by treating the latter like the former.

And here’s how: learn to defend your views by reading books.

For example, is the abortion issue a concern to you? Then read Francis J. Beckwith’s 2007 book “Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice”, published by Cambridge University Press, and put it up on your shelf at work.

Is the marriage/divorce issue a concern to you? Then read Stephen Baskerville’s 2007 book “Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family”, published by Cumberland House, and put it up on your shelf at work.

And so on… bioethics is just like any other area of publicly testable knowledge. The more you know, the more confident you become, and the easier it is to speak about these things in a non-threatening, academic tone. People actually debate these topics in formal, timed debates at universities, in front of students, for example.

We succeed in persuading our neighbors about social issues as we succeed in persuading our neighbors about anything. Bring more data to the table than your opponent and you will do well. Even if you don’t get an admission, talking about moral issues seriously creates respect for traditional social conservative views in the culture, by showing that we have reasons, and not just blind-faith.

UPDATE: This post over at Nice Deb is a must-read. Obama is telling Catholic Cardinals that he’s not pro-abortion.

News

Jim Demint scores against Democrats on health care

Leave a comment
Senator Jim Demint
Senator Jim Demint

Great news! Senator Jim Demint tried to pass a bill guaranteeing more liberty in health care, and he succeeded. The Heritage Foundation‘s blog The Foundry has the story.

His bill read, in part:

The Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, moves that the managers on the part of the Senate … be instructed to insist that the conference report on the concurrent resolution … shall not decrease the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance, while increasing the number of Americans enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care.

Remember, Obama’s goal is to control our lives, by controlling the free market:

This language is important because many aspects of Obama’s health care budget seek to expand the numbers of Americans enrolled in government-managed health care, which necessarily then “crowds out” private health care forcing more Americans into government managed care.

Those voting against DeMint’s motion (and therefore for the unlimited expansion of government rationed care) include:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)

I also spotted this story over at the Pacific Research Institute. This should be a wake up call to all those who believe that nationalizing health care would give them more freedom.

Excerpt:

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada found that elements of the province of Quebec’s monopoly over health care violated citizens’ human rights, because of the government’s failure to deliver care.  Since then, other Canadians have launched similar lawsuits in other provinces.

In British Columbia, the monopolistic provincial health plan is suing Dr. Brian Day, an orthopedic surgeon, for allegedly receiving direct payment from patients for performing surgeries in his clinic. Mindful of the 2005 Supreme Court decision, the province has adopted a novel legal tactic: claiming that health care is not a right!  If that is the case, then the government’s monopoly obviously cannot violate citizens’ rights!

We need to learn from countries like Canada, who have already tried socialized medicine. Or we could look at Sweden. Either way, we shouldn’t be adopting failed health delivery systems.

Commentary

Millions Will Lose Health Care from their Employer Under the Democrats’ Plan

Leave a comment
House Republican Leader John Boehner
House Republican Leader John Boehner

I spotted this scary post over at John Boehner’s blog. The post, written by Kevin Lewis, links to this AP article that highlights a new study from the Lewin Group. I blogged before about the Democrats’ plan to equalize life outcomes and redistribute wealth by nationalizing health care. Now we get more details of how they’ll do it.

Here is a summary of the Democrats’ plan:

President Barack Obama and many Democrats want to create a government insurance plan to compete with private plans that now cover about 170 million Americans. The issue is major sticking point for Republicans and the insurance industry.

And the predicted results of that plan:

The Lewin study found that if such a plan were open to all employers and individuals, and if it paid doctors and hospitals the same as Medicare, the government plan would quickly grow to 131 million members, while enrollment in private insurance plans would plummet.

“The private insurance industry might just fizzle out altogether,” said John Sheils, a Lewin vice president and leading author of the study.

By paying Medicare rates the government plan would be able to set premiums well below what private plans charge. Monthly premiums for family coverage would be $761 in the government plan, compared with an average of $970 in private plans, the study estimated. Employers and individuals would flock to the public plan to cut costs.

Lewis cites two of the study‘s key findings:

“If as the President proposed, eligibility is limited to only small employers, individuals and the self-employed … The number of people with private coverage would fall by 32.0 million people.”

“If the public plan is opened to all employers as proposed by former Senators Clinton and Edwards, at Medicare payment levels … The number of people with private health insurance would decline by 119.1 million people. This would be a two-thirds reduction in the number of people with private coverage (currently 170 million people).”

More here at the Heritage Foundation.

Further study

Here are some previous links that are relevant: