Among the Intellectualoids
The Promised Land of Government Controlled Health Care
The evangelical left rallies to the president’s cause.
Evangelical Left activist Jim Wallis of Sojourners is rallying liberal wayfarers for the Promised Land of government-controlled health care, announcing his “40 Days for Health Reform” crusade during an August 10 media conference call. The media and political pressure campaign by liberal religionists represents a “massive escalation” for Obamacare, a news release promised. Evidently President Obama himself will join Wallis in his next media conference call on August 19, creating a political Mount of Transfiguration moment, with both the figurative Moses and Messiah (or Elijah?) joining to save their people from the Egypt of private health insurance.
Naturally, Wallis is upset that there is murmuring among skeptics who prefer the safety of bondage back under Pharaoh. “I see lies being told, I see fears being raised, and I see violence even being threatened at these mob sessions,” intoned Wallis about angry town halls where the Land of Milk and Honey has been denounced by critics of government health care. “This moral issue cannot be demagogued in the street,” he insisted, according to a report by my colleague Jeff Walton. These untrusting murmurers “want to shut down democracy,” Wallis complained. This critique from the old SDS campus and street activist, himself having invited arrest in dozens of angry demonstrations across four decades, is humorous.
Wallis’s Religious Left coalition is targeting about 100 members of Congress across 18 states in its “non-partisan” campaign for Obamacare, starting with national television ads this week, followed by local “prayer rallies,” and “large-scale meetings” in “key states,” and call-in campaigns. “Every so often there is an issue so clear and compelling, or so alarming and disturbing that it galvanizes the faith community,” Wallis opined about the present moment. “The faith community is going to stand in the way of those that want to stop conversation,” he promised, almost summoning up terrible visions of the Lawgiver calling down divine judgment upon the idolaters at the base of Mt. Sinai.
“We will be pushing, pulling, sometimes holding their hands, make sure they [lawmakers] do not succumb to intimidation,” Wallis promised, a though speaking of the ancient Hebrews who were reluctant to cross the Red Sea, even with Egyptian chariots on their heels. Particularly determined to rally active religious believers, especially evangelicals, behind Obamacare, Wallis derided as “irresponsible” widespread “fears” that a government plan could compel coverage for abortion and euthanasia. “There are a lot of lies about healthcare reform and euthanasia,” he bewailed. “A healthcare reform comprehensive plan will support the sacredness of human life, and there are those of us that will make sure that it does,” Wallis said. “The key thing is that we do not want abortion to enter this debate and sabotage healthcare reform,” he insisted. The Religious Left crusade for Obamacare “isn’t political in a partisan way,” Wallis declared. “This is a moral issue.”
Messianic promises about Obamacare were not limited to Wallis’ coalition. The United Methodist lobby office is hyping its “John 10:10” campaign, pointing to Christ’s promise, recorded by St. John, “That I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” According to the United Methodist Board of Church and Society initiative: “The next 10 weeks represent a rare window of opportunity to provide health care for all people in the United States.” Not many in the 2lst century typically equate government programs with “abundant” life. But much of the old Religious Left’s statism has barely updated its rhetoric since the New Deal.
Chief United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler pronounced himself “baffled” over opposition to Obamacare, ascribing it to “talking points” from insurance companies, which “desperately do not want a public option to be provided by the government.” After all, the insurance industry “skims” between 12-30 percent “off the top for profit,” while government plans far more thriftily operate at only a 5 percent administrative expense, Winkler unblanchingly explained. But robots apparently wound up by insurance companies and “right wing radio” have generated ugly “ambushes at town hall meetings.”
Winkler admitted distrust of government was understandable, given “Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq, decades of covert operations and government-sponsored assassinations and coups d’etats, and secrecy and lies, and oppression and imperialism have left our people confused and angry and jaded and distrustful where Uncle Sam is involved.” He omitted distrust of Great Society domestic programs, which have often outspent the military, with sometimes far less to show. But the Religious Left, like much of the secular left, distrusts the U.S. Government on national security even while it messianically trusts the same government to seize and administer vast portions of the private economy. This schizophrenic view of the state almost completely inverts historic Christians teachings, which specifically assign to the state police and military powers, while reserving most other human responsibilities to private sectors.
Undoubtedly like Wallis and most on the Religious Left, Winkler would prefer immediate single-payer government health care instead of Obamacare’s incrementalism. “I, too, am distrustful of the quality of health-care reform that may emerge through this process,” Winkler tut-tutted. “It seems to me that placating the interests of the rich and powerful has been accorded far too much importance.”
But especially for Wallis, pragmatism and deference to the Administration take priority over ideological purity. Even Moses was a realist as he led the often complaining former bondsmen across Sinai towards the Land of their Fathers. Winkler warns that the progressive faith community, in its endless pursuit of justice, can always expect opposition from “those who have benefited from white supremacy, male superiority and American exceptionalism.”
Such hyperbole undermines the quest by shrewder activists like Wallis to affect moderation. Meanwhile, an agency of the 16 million Southern Baptist Convention has released its own review (pdf) of Obamacare, or at least of the House of Representatives version, deriding its “increased bureaucracy and intrusiveness,” not to mention higher taxes, likely rationing, lower quality, and potential threats to the unborn and the elderly.
Comparisons between the Southern Baptist critique and the Wallis/Winkler messianic faith might recall that when Moses led the Chosen People out of Egypt towards the Promised Land, it was slavish “bureaucracy and intrusiveness” from which they were fleeing, not seeking.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/13/the-promised-land-of-governmen
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Walk the Line
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- Once Upon a Time in the West
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Rosencrans| 8.13.09 @ 6:41AM
The red seas we will be crossing now if this ill thought out monstrosity is approved, are red seas of debt.
Ironically, it is Mr. Wallis himself who is intentionally or intentionally doing the very thing he complains about. It is the political mavens like Mr. Wallis who are spreading lies and fear because they are spreading misinformation.
A perfect example of that is Mr. Winkler who claims the health industry is skimming 15% or more off the top for profits. If you check the link below you will see the health care industry ranks 86th in profits with a profit margin of 3.3%. Mr. Winkler sends 4.4 times that amount to D.C. in the form of his social security taxes. Maybe the Mr. Winklers of the world should focus on that problem if that's their real concern.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html
As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).
And isn't one reason for a lack of competition that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels."
Tenn Slim| 8.13.09 @ 8:47AM
All
From a Non Partisian. Duke University. Analysis of Health Care House Bill
http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm
Site details specifically, what the above article requires us to take on "faith" .
Read and be aware.
Semper Fi
end
Ryan| 8.13.09 @ 9:37AM
Wow...what a misuse of John 10:10. Jesus wasn't pressing for universal healthcare or a comfortable life, He was stating that real, true, abundant life comes through Him.
The "evangelical" left often has a serious issue with Biblical context and meaning, and attempt to skew scripture to simply helping people - and sometimes using the government to force it to be done.
Phil| 8.13.09 @ 10:07AM
"Evangelical Left"???
There's an oxymoron, if I've ever heard one!
Louis Jenkins| 8.13.09 @ 10:09AM
If Obama would just drop this Health Care revision and place a snake on the top of a pole we'd all be better off.
Pingback| 8.13.09 @ 11:10AM
Oh, those tricky Democrats: abortion is provided in Obamacare « Jim Blazsik links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike| 8.13.09 @ 12:35PM
They should have there tax exempt status removed!
mark in boston| 8.13.09 @ 2:47PM
I will try to avoid the more incindary elements of my response and not use religious commentary.
If you look at healthcare in terms of treating human suffering, it is really commendable that ethically driven individuals feel it is their duty to expedite rational discusison and help push for health insurance reform.
In a brief rebut to Robert Rosencrans, the profit margins you cite seem accurate. In fact I know a hospital with a billion+ dollar annual budget and 1% "profit" margin. I have worked at hospitals and health institutions. However, the 3% profit margin is AFTER they have already paid their admin staff to process their billing invoices using ICD 9 protocols, and other administrative expenses.
A Massachusetts study estimated admin costs at about 33% annually overall. That is a huge waste of money which could be used to treat our population, and help build a healthy competitive society.
Until we reform insurance we are the laughing stock of the industrial world, in danger of becoming a 3rd rate country. Thank you.
Jeremy| 8.13.09 @ 3:51PM
Mark in Boston is right. The government provides police to protect the people from crime and fire departments to protect people from fire and other disasters. Yet when it comes to illness or injury we leave it to unregulated insurance companies.
Could you imagine if you called the police because there was a robber at your home but they decide not to save you because you didn't sign your last speeding ticket. Because that is exactly what insurance companies do. They promise great plans and people pay premiums for years, but when they need care you might get lucky and get it paid for or they might discover that you didn't check yes or no on the box asking if you'd ever had the flu and they'll drop you from coverage.
Grzmlyk| 8.13.09 @ 4:48PM
It is government meddling that has created the insurance debacle. The answer to government meddling is not more government meddling.
33% administrative costs in the private insurance sector? If you think that's high, try looking at the REAL administrative costs - not bookkeeping mumbo jumbo- involved in any government-run entity. I see these numbers for medicaid that administrative costs are 5% - that is utter nonsense. Government is ALWAYS less efficient than the private sector. You cannot name one apples-to-apples instance where this is not the case. That's why you get $500 toilet seats in the military.
Have either of you (Mark or Jeremy) noticed that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are broke? That Medicaid in particular is so poorly run and rife with abuse that the ratio of dollars that go toward actual patient care vs. wasted dollars is on the order of seven to three? How many unessential, union-entrenched government employees do you see buzzing around the hive of any Federal agency? They're teeming with these bureaucrats.
If you were captains of the Titanic, no doubt you'd think the solution to the gash on the starboard side would be to create a gash on the port side of equal length in order to stabilize the ship.
It is NUTS to have the government run anything - and you can bet that if fire depts and police depts were privately run, they'd be more responsive and wouldn't be crying "poor" all the time. People made that same argument about the post office when Fedex first came on the scene. Which is now solvent? Hint: It ain't the post office. And Amtrak has NEVER made a dime. I could go on and on.
BTW, the only time you see monopolies like we have the balkanized insurance industry is when government gets involved. Not when it doesn't.
For the life of me I don't know what you can point to in the history of government programs that bodes well for the government taking over 1/7 of our economy. If the graveyard of our own myriad failed programs and Canada and Great Britain's bankrupt and homicidal health care situations doesn't convince you, all I can say is I hope you don't mind waiting 37 weeks for an MRI. And paying for three other guys to wait too.
Jeremy| 8.13.09 @ 5:41PM
It's funny that people talk down about the Post Office and Amtrak. Maybe Amtrak hasn't made money, but I still use it. Maybe the Post Office doesn't get your packages there as fast, but I use it because they have good rates and it's much more convenient for me to go to the Post Office where I can get all the necessary supplies for shipping.
The United States Enrichment Corporation was privatized in 1998. Republicans accused it of being inefficiently run by the DOE and said that it needed to be a private organization to thrive. The Government lets it be sold for pennies on the dollar of the DOE's investment in order to foster a strong financial position. Throughout the 90s profits were never below $200 million a year. It became privatized and the managers cut advanced research programs, they broke their contracts, and profits plummeted to under $50 million a year.
How about your police force? How about your fire department? Do you want private corporations running the organizations that protect your home and family? Private organizations that would reserve the right to refuse service?
The right-wing talks a big game about the evils of government waste but they refused to eliminate social security or medicare during the twelve years that they ran Congress.
Finally, if you don't think the government can run the public option that is one thing. But the vast majority of right-wing complaints are leveled against reform generally. Again THIS IS NOT A BRITISH OR CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEM!!!! I don't know why you don't get that this plan is insurance reform, and the public option at worst would be a bad insurance company and at best a good insurance company. This isn't a government ploy to put hospitals under the command of the Department of Health and Human Services. The government can't say you can't receive care unless you CHOOSE to buy into the government plan. And as far as the wait time, the only reason this plan would increase wait times is if it increases the number of people who are able to afford health-care. "God forbid we have a nation where the lower classes can sit in the same waiting room with me! UGh." It's funny that the right accuses the Left of elitism because they want to eliminate insurance fraud and provide accessible healthcare to the millions who are denied or can't afford it.
And if you think that the banks collapsed from over-regulation I would recommend you read an economics textbook or the news. Without proper regulation people find ways to play the system, which is what they did. I will acknowledge the role the Freddie and Fannie played in the housing crisis. But to say that over-regulation led the banks to absorb debt far beyond what they could conceivably pay is a lie.
c.j. acworth| 8.13.09 @ 6:41PM
Jeremy. Did you say "unregulated insurance companies"? You were smiling when you said it, right? Please tell me you are not actually so ignorant as to believe that.
Len| 8.13.09 @ 6:45PM
Jeremy you frigging idiot, the comparison between someone breaking into a home and say a germ stalking someone to do them wrong (a little sarcasm there) is so inapt I have to wonder if you comprehend much of the real issues concerning health care in the US.
Let's deal first with your horrible analogy. In a society the reason for instituting government is to protect life, liberty and property, thus police/military, laws and the legislators and executives necessary to enact them and a court system when there is conflict or failure to abide by them. Germs, accidents, illnesses are not part of that society , they are not humans who have free will and of their own volition decide to act, and thus apart from some plague being spread, government can not act in the area of health care, because it cannot do so justly(other than a true democracy, where the number is small enough that all willingly submit themselves to one another). Part of why it cannot do so justly is that we are not responsible to one another for what randomness may befall someone.
In addition to government acting as extension(representation) of the individual(s) in regards to life, liberty and property/fruit of labor there are utilities(useful things) that are mutually beneficial such as roads that enable to us to engage in consensual exchange and thus enhance our natural 3. Government health care is a specific benefit, that strips people of liberty in conscience by dictating what one is to consider a positive moral good(this is between the individual and God), and violates one's right to the fruit of one's labor by forcingone to provide for another without just compensation(takings clause?).
You, like so many enjoy a false morality that ignores God's righteousness (can't really be moral if it is not from God and thus arbitrary due to it being a creation man, a limited being) and thus make government your God and religion which is to right all the wrongs in the world. God Himself never forced anyone to give anything. For example even Ananais and Saphiras were told that their money was theirs to do with and were judged for lying, not witholding money.
Plain and simple health care belongs to the people that provide it and not all, so what you and the other statists are getting behind is forced charity, which is really theft.
Len| 8.13.09 @ 6:54PM
Jeremy's other idiocy, or well one thing, AMTRAK. Jeremy, for your own sake man think! If everything that we used was a drain economically how long before there was no wealth, no resources, chaos and ruin widespread poverty? Oh wait, that's where the statists are taking us. Again, THINK! Does using one thing mean that there is not something better, or even if not as convenient that it is better for all in that is profitable and benefits a larger number? I truly do not know if this getting through and I realize I am being hard, but the thought of people like Jeremy who lack the ability to deeply analyze ideas and then participate and have a say in the affairs of this country are frightening.
Campy| 8.13.09 @ 6:57PM
Jeremy,
Before you launch into another sophomoric soliloquy, I would suggest you take your own advice and do some reading.
Your examples—the USEC and Freddie/Fannie—failed because of government meddling, but you have to dig for 'the rest of the story' as Paul Harvey used to say. In particular, check out Barney Fwank's (ongoing) contribution.
As far as the "right-wing talks a big game about the evils of government waste but they refused to eliminate social security or medicare during the twelve years that they ran Congress," how exactly would you propose doing that at this point? It's nearly impossible to go back once people come to expect entitlements, and only part of the reason this bill future is such a colossal boondoggle.
There's not enough time to get into the rest. Take some responsibility to research it on your own, rather than gulping down the spoonfuls of Obamyrot you're being fed.
Louis Jenkins| 8.13.09 @ 7:31PM
I have read the Constitution, and will someone please tell me where it is written that the President, the House, and the Senate are to provide elective or forced insurance and health care? I seem to have missed that part.
Bryan| 8.13.09 @ 11:52PM
Where do Americans get their information from regarding Canadian healthcare? I'm a Canadian. Our healthcare system, although subject to rampant abuse, etc, etc, so completely exceeds any level of care in the USA it's incredible. That's why literally hundreds of thousands of Americans fraudulently utilize the healthcare cards of their Canadian family and friends.
If I were to get, say, cancer and I'm a Canadian citizen... it will never cost me a dime to be treated. Me and my family don't go bankrupt. We are not denied treatment.
Same for any disease and ailment that exists. We are all, as a country, covered.
Only in recent years are we charged a very small, but annoying, tax premium for health coverage.
But in the end... every stitch, every band-aid, every MRI, every X-Ray, every surgery.... it is all covered.
Don't you get it?
The problems, wait times and doctor shortages that any city experiences in Canada... yes... no one questions it.... but it is the same situation in USA where you are NOT covered by your corrupt insurance companies.
Your country could only hope to emulate what Canada has in terms of healthcare.
And Canadian healthcare is FAR from perfect.
That's how bad US healthcare is.
John Leaver| 8.14.09 @ 4:42AM
Malign criticisms of the UK's National Health Service appall me. I'm a Brit who was diagnosed with a heart condition and the husband of a woman with rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes who had a mastectomy and chemotherapy last year. My wife and I have had a great deal of contact with the NHS over the past eighteen months and the various doctors we've met have all been caring and competent. And we haven't had to think about who was going to pay for our treatment. From the UK it seems to us that the opponents of healthcare reform are resorting to the technique of the Big Lie - if you say something loud and often enough, however malicious and ill-informed you'll get an audience. I can't express an opinion about Obama's healthcare plans because I don't know enough about them - and I don't expect Americans to diss the NHS when they know bugger all about it
Richard Baker| 8.14.09 @ 9:10PM
Leaver:
Just because we don't USE the National Health doesn't mean we don't know what it is and how it works. If I see crap on the ground I don't have to pick it up and smell it to prove that it's crap, you follow?
Richard Baker| 8.15.09 @ 12:52PM
Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals could believe them.
--George Orwell
Bryan:
Canada's health system is so good, overall, that US border clinics are full of Canadians. See my message to Leaver above.
BillCC| 8.16.09 @ 5:05AM
Martin Luther on coerced redistribution:
For baptism does not make men free in body and property, but in soul; and the gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who, of their own free will, do what the apostles and disciples did in Acts 4 [:32–37]. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others—of Pilate and Herod—should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, want to make the goods of other men common, and keep their own for themselves. Fine Christians they are! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. Their raving has gone beyond all measure.
Gabe Martin| 8.19.09 @ 6:15PM
I think without doubt the UK system is way beyond the US system. You cant compare them.
The UK treats people without pre-judgement on how wealthy you are, they way it works is this - If you need medical attention you see a doctor and it is paid for through taxes. In America there are far too many people not being seen who don't have Healthcare insurance, and is a system which is judges you on your position within society, it is elitist. When you think about it, it is disturbing.
The corporate companies are worried about losing money, not helping the American people.
Listen to Obama - he knows what he's doing!! The NHS rocks, American healthcare (at the moment) sucks! Simple.