Freedom from Fear in the Health-Care Debate

"Berlin says: 'You lack political liberty or freedom only if you are prevented from attaining a goal by human beings.' The health-care legislation requires citizens to buy health insurance. If we do not, we can be fined. My question is: what goal does such a mandate prevent us from attaining?"

There are a wide range of goals that could be thwarted by this mandate: homes not bought, businesses not started, educations delayed for lack of tuition, all because the government says you must buy this particular thing before you buy anything else.

"When we all buy health insurance, we get a tangible benefit in return. We lose the freedom not to buy health insurance, but we gain the benefit of freedom from denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions."

So now you acknowledge that we lose some sort of freedom, but that we gain an ironclad entitlement to care. But that depends on the quality of the insurance purchased, which will be driven, to no small amount, by the specifics of the "government option". I'm still very unclear as to how the government option makes financial pressures go away. Insurers will still be motivated to save money, and care costs money.

"Berlin also reminds us that to instead offer freedom to people who need food, clothing, shelter and health care 'is to mock their condition.'

Yes, and to force healthy people who want to go to school, build a home, start a business, etc, to buy health insurance they don't necessarily need is also to mock their condition.

"God has not given us the spirit of fear. We ought not to fear our own government."

I don't fear my government any more than I fear the waitress at my favorite restaurant, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hand over my health care decisions to her. Even if we ignore the "tired, thin, one-dimensional" freedom question, there's still the little matter of whether or not the government that has made a hash of flu vaccine has the competence to run a health insurance program.

"The paradox is by giving up a portion of our freedom, we will gain greater freedom."

I have yet to hear what that "greater freedom" is. Freedom from disease? Hardly. Freedom from not having access to health care? I already have access, as do the vast majority of Americans.

Ms. Dixon ignores the price tag while the "good" I'm supposed to buy consists largely of hot air. Opposition to this mandatory "deal" she dismisses as "fear". Sorry, if I'm going to trade freedoms, I want something valuable in return. That's not fear, or even an overattachment to abstract freedom. It's just not wanting to get ripped off.

LV

In other words, there is a greater good than "freedom" -- it's called justice.

Government is to be feared more than corporations, certainly. Just like a rottweiler with an electric collar is less dangerous than one without. Or would you seriously not fear a rottweiler after being mauled by one?

You also forget the economic impact of socialism. Costs go up and effort goes down. It happened in the USSR, and socialist Europe will need to maintain good health a while more before I'll trust their system. (A potential project would be to define good health and see if they have it now.)

Dr. Dixon,
Thank you for your generous, caring, careful thought and your eloquent description of the balance that is necessary for society to thrive. I am moved to hope again for a world in which we are not dogs reduced to eating dogs, but can envision God's household doing God's will on earth, as in heaven.
(Thanks for the great quotes, too! Especially Berlin's comment about offering freedom instead of care.)

Justice is as disputed as freedom. To me, justice = the lack of encroachments on rights/freedom. In Scripture, injustices are decried which cannot be solved by government, so it seems obvious that there are at least two levels of both rights and justice.

Another thought occurs to me. It's getting to be something of a cliche around here, the notion that opposition to this program or that is motivated by fear and since the Bible enjoins fear at various points, this means that opposition to said program is illegitimate.

But of course two can play that game: the left clamours for government programs out of fear of the rigours and (to be fair) occasional caprices of the free market. But God has not given us a spirit of fear, therefore there is no need for government health care. QED

If you don't mind a little friendly advice, I'd go easy on the argument "against fear". It just doesn't get you very far.

LV

I am afraid to leave my door unlocked since I think someone could come in and rob my home. I am also afraid that a government takeover of health care could have many negative consequences.

Please tell me how these fears would be unbiblical or how one would be but the other wouldn't.

That's not what the Bible says about it -- read the Prophets sometime. It
means doing what's right by everybody and even may at times entail curtailing
"freedom."

That's not what the Bible says about it -- read the Prophets sometime.

That is a rather condescending tone. I have read the prophets; to my knowledge they only intervene physically when religion gets involved and that not always. (I can't think of any law proposed by a prophet.) For example, the prophets of Baal did forfeit their right to life to Elijah, and certain kings tore down idols. But mostly it's a process of warning and waiting for God's action, especially for sins which don't involve religion.

You might like to say that all sins involve religion, but this seems like twisting words to me. The religion mentioned in Scripture is of the most literal kind. Further, if you categorize it as religion it falls under the protection of the Constitution. If you want to claim that the Constitution is a violated covenant which no longer matters - well, at least that's consistent but I don't think you have any business in politics.

So if you would like to point out a passage which breaks the mold I described in the first paragraph, be my guest.

Sorry if that sounds condescending, but I get annoyed when people call justice "just protecting MY stuff"; that's basically what I heard and what often passes for truth in the evangelical world; as such, it contradicts the Scripture. I believe that we're supposed to be concerned not with my own authority but with the rights and freedoms of those around me. That's justifiable in Christianity -- but only in Christianity.

From Philippians 2:1-4:

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Elsewhere in the Scriptures it tells believers not to treat unbelievers differently, so I think it applies.

You already have health insurance? That's great; I do too. So does my wife, thanks to being married to me. That could change in a minute if I lost my job or worse; as a cancer survivor, she'd be toast.

Fortunately, I'm not likely to lose my job, since I have tenure, that great guarantor of academic freedom. I'm sorry if a bill that guarantees her access to health care if the unthinkable were to happen strikes you as "hot air." Personally, I can think of quite a few superfluous freedoms I would be willing to cash in to make sure it passes, and even some more fundamental ones.

BTW, I agree that the fear thing is being pushed too far, as is the freedom thing. What this is about is justice, and the measure of justice is whether you look out for people who are less fortunate - or, in this case, less lucky.

Sorry, but it actually is fear that's driving the discourse right now -- not so much a fear of loss of money but loss of authority. A whole lot of folks spend their lives trying to be "above" the next guy, and all of a sudden here's a government program that basically renders some of those efforts somewhat obsolete. Bottom line, it's part of the "dog-eat-dog" or "social Darwinist" mentality we've seen in this country over the past 30 years or so, and it makes God cringe.

Justice-Will it be just when our children are not saved from a condition because the government has done away with incentives for our best and britest to be in the medical profession?

"Yes, and to force healthy people who want to go to school, build a home, start a business, etc, to buy health insurance they don't necessarily need is also to mock their condition."

I was very healthy in grad school. But I bought the cheapest BC/BS insurance they offered anyway (at that time, like $18/month--wonder what that policy would cost today?). Glad I did, especially on the day I played soccer and "smoked a joint", if you get what I mean. I ended up having surgery, and with that cheap policy had quite a bit covered, but still ended up with a few thousand dollars in bills to pay.

As a student with little to no income, it was a monumental expense for me. It is ironic that at a time in my life when I could least afford it, that was when my coverage was also the least.

The point, of course, is that when we are healthy, we think we don't need insurance. Until that accident happens. I'm an excellent driver and have never had an accident or even a speeding ticket, so why should I be required to buy car insurance?

"I already have access, as do the vast majority of Americans."

What are you implying by that statement? That those who don't have access don't matter? That it is their own fault for not working hard enough?

I had a colleague who had brain surgery when she was a grad student. As a grad student, she had insurance through the university, but because she had to drop out of school to deal with that pesky brain tumor, she lost her insurance. It's very expensive to be treated for a brain tumor, as you can perhaps imagine. She was struggling to get on another insurance policy, and the university we taught at didn't give adjunct professors insurance. One insurance company about as much as told her it would have been easier for her to have died. Ironically again, she got hit with this when she least could afford it, and when she was young and healthy. If she had been hit after she had finished grad school and gotten that tenure track university gig, everything would have been covered.

So, is it that she didn't deserve the insurance, or that she didn't work hard enough to earn it that she was uninsured?

I have great problems with applying passages regarding basic morality to government. Modern liberal political policies had not yet been conceived of at this point in time, and I find nothing in Scripture to indicate they should have been. Everything of this sort that I see relates only to the individual's relationship to other individuals - not the government's relationship to individuals.

But in the interest of drawing political policy from Scripture, here's one I can apply against welfare - although I think the argument that it only applies to the Church would be easy to make based on context.

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

"Everything of this sort that I see relates only to the individual's relationship to other individuals - not the government's relationship to individuals."

Only a modern individualist could read the prophets this way. Without exception, they were calling Israel to task for her failure to live up to her responsibility as God's chosen people. The relationship of individuals to other individuals is only comprehensible in this context. The modern concept of the responsibility of one individual to another as the ultimate good quite simply didn't exist for the writers of the Old Testament.

I agree that Israel was addressed as a nation, although I don't see any difference between that and us doing the same to America. In the latter case, we are addressing each individual and expecting them to lead the rest. If this isn't what you mean, I need a full explanation of that worldview and proof that they held it.

As long as individuals live in society, freedom is not absolute. The common good puts limits on individual freedom.

"Common good" does not supersede individual freedom. And for that matter, whose definition of common good? Mine? Yours? Majority rule? Popular opinion?

My question is: what goal does such a mandate prevent us from attaining?

The very existence of this question betrays Ms. Dixon's distrust in individuals to make his/her own choices. People are not ants; they are individuals with rational choice, free will, and ought to have the ability to pursue the goals they themselves have decided are best for them. In an earlier post a few months ago, Ms. Dixon invoked "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as rights our government should ensure. This mandate specifically goes against "pursuit of happiness," precisely because it negates an individual's decision to pursue happiness in other ways.

We cooperate with our fellow citizens to help pay for health care for all.
Only in 1982 does the word "cooperate" mean this. When the government mandates something, that is not cooperation, that is coercion.

Freedom is complicated. It is more than the ability to do what we want without interference.
Freedom is not complicated. To say so otherwise is to twist the meaning of the word freedom in order to justify non-peaceful actions such as government mandates. Obviously in a society there is not "unlimited" freedoms; my will does not always coincide with others', and so we are required to peacefully exchange. Enter mandates by government as to how we should peacefully exchange, and you have an infringement upon freedom.

We ought not to fear our own government. In a republic, our vote is a check on the power of government. The paradox is by giving up a portion of our freedom, we will gain greater freedom.
Thomas Jefferson would disagree: "Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people, there is liberty." Our vote at the federal level is meaningless, and is in no way a "check" on the power of government.

As for the freedom paradox, I agree, but not in the same way as stated here. Being forced to give up freedoms is not the same thing as voluntarily giving up one's freedom for a "greater good." Be assured: we are being forced-coerced-to go along with Congress' legislation, whatever law is codified.

Remember, however, that both Israel and the early church were both in covenant with God to seek and promote justice, both with each other and our neighbors. I don't agree with a strict "individualist" approach to those "commands" in Scripture, along with you. But I think the context of neighborliness, sacrifice, and love toward others must be understood as things to be voluntary. The very fact that the government is needing to enact anything is more an indictment on our injustice rather than an establishment of justice.

Have you thought of why your health care is tied to employment? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you have to pay for insurance through lower wages? Doesn't it seem wasteful and poor stewardship to have less competition, less control, and fewer options for your health care? If the problem with losing insurance when becoming unemployed, there's an easy solution: don't tie insurance to employment! Imagine if we all had to go choose a plan on our own, on the open market... just like every other market, costs of insurance would go down by virtue of competition. Add to that the state governments restricting insurance companies from operating across state lines, and there's even less competition.

The problem does not lie in access to health care, but in the costs of that health care increasing over time due to increased regulation, restriction, and no competition. Big Insurance loves having no competition because it means they can charge relatively whatever they want.

"In the latter case, we are addressing each individual and expecting them to lead the rest."

But that is not at all what the prophets were doing. They were calling Israel, collectively, to account. If you disagree with this, the burden of proof is on you, since you are going against the entire weight of Biblical tradition and substituting modern individualism, which has no grounding or support in the Bible.

"But I think the context of neighborliness, sacrifice, and love toward others must be understood as things to be voluntary."

A noble goal, but one that our modern "every man for himself" ethos does not support. If we really listen to the call of the Prophets, they speak about God's commands to Israel, not about voluntary choice.

...I have trouble seeing grounding or support either way. And I would still need an explanation of that worldview's axioms and how they translate into public policy.

"Big Insurance loves having no competition because it means they can charge relatively whatever they want."

Absolutely, but I maintain that only government is capable of fixing this problem, preferably through a single payer system that eliminates private business from the equation. The free market is an abstraction that is based on the principle of individual self-interest; it is not a dynamic force capable of doing anything to solve this problem. Free market health care, as far as I'm concerned, would be a nightmare: the ultimate apples to oranges mismatch in which a problem relating to the public good is thrown to private interest for a "solution." Sorry, but no thanks.