A CHRISTIAN GUIDE TO OBAMACARE
BY DR. BERNARD JAMES MAUSER, Ph.D.
Mark Twain once wrote, “Reader, suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” Former House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare, “We have to pass the bill so you can
find out what is in it.” We are quickly seeing the truths in both of these
statements. Many have realized the legislation called the Affordable
Care Act (or Obamacare) is a misnomer as it is not affordable or caring. It is
clearly a Leviathan we all face today that has captured America. Thomas Hobbes
wrote Leviathan as a way of describing the inescapable and destructive beast of
government- an apt analogy of what has become Obamacare. If we properly judge
the inadequacies of those in charge of healthcare- and have paid any attention
at all to what is in the plan they had to pass before reading- we’d have reason
to be very afraid. Yet there are a few on the fringe that call for Christians
to lay down their arms (both literally and figuratively) and submit to this new
law of the land. Why?
In Romans 13, Paul admonishes believers to submit to the
ruling authorities. People are to recognize that these are established by God.
This is generally taken to be an extension of Jesus’s admonition to “Render to
Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matt. 22:21) As
Obamacare is the law of the land, it seems to imply Christians are obligated to
support it.
The argument from compassion is also a popular argument (I
mean after all- isn’t the plan itself compassionate because it has Care in its
name?). This argument says that Government-provided healthcare is the most
compassionate way to ensure that every person that needs it can get treatment
(apparently they were unaware of the already existing laws providing this very
thing before Obamacare- but I digress). As the Christian strives to follow
Jesus’s command to clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, and help the sick- those
promoting Obamacare argue Christians should be among the first providing
support.
Each of these arguments, though popular, has serious flaws.
For the first argument, it is true that the authorities are
established by God. But it is not so simple to say that every law a government
makes is ‘Divinely ordained.’ First of all, some laws may be immoral. Suppose,
for example, that there was a law that said that foundational human rights
(like life or liberty) did not exist inherently because of a person being
human, but were rights that existed because they are conferred on persons by
the state. In other words, suppose the state claimed that it is the source of
rights- as opposed to rights existing by virtue of someone’s humanity. If a
state makes this claim, and then proceeded to strip an individual’s right to
life and liberty from them, this would be grounds for declaring that law to be
immoral. We can see historical examples of immoral laws like this in the Scott
v. Sanford (1856) and Roe v. Wade (1973). In both Supreme Court decisions human
rights were trampled. Dred Scott was denied the liberty to live as free from
his master; the unborn was also denied the liberty to live as free from her
mother.
Consider the background of how one may judge laws to be good
or bad. In classical political philosophy, a good law is such if it is in
accord with human nature (i.e., reason). In other words, a law is not good if
it violates a human’s nature (i.e., the natural law) - allowing for defense of
the body, education of offspring, and to love God and others. Laws created by the government are civil laws.
Civil laws are not binding if against the foundational natural law. The natural
law (also mentioned in Romans 2) is a moral law that tells how humans OUGHT to
act.
As a moral law, this natural law is binding and none are
permitted to violate it- including the government. Thus, if there is a conflict
between the civil law of Romans 13 and the natural law of Romans 2 (which only
happens when the government makes immoral laws), then natural law trumps civil
law. Everyone recognizes the legitimacy
of this. For example, the Nazis charged with murder in
the Nuremberg Trials after WWII showed us that the world-at-large recognized
that natural law is superior to civil law. Those participating in these
atrocities were found guilty of violating the natural law- regardless of the
defense of ‘just following the orders of the civil law.’ This idea of following
orders is simply an appeal to following the immoral commands of the governing
authority.
Much of the dispute from
the religious community recognizes that Obamacare is immoral on at least one
level. By forcing everyone (including Christians) to pay for abortions, the
government has in essence violated Romans 2.
Because of this very issue, employers have dropped health care benefits
across the board. Some of this has to do with the extreme cost, but another
aspect has to do with a crisis of conscience. Organizations that Christians own
feel a dilemma as to whether they should follow God or men. The reason is these
believers face abortion-related mandates in the new federal plan. This is the
cause of numerous lawsuits against the federal government, and contributes to
more people losing their healthcare than would have without Obamacare.[i]
At another level the
burdensome taxes violate the natural law insofar as these taxes steal wealth
from those that have earned it. As natural law forbids stealing, and the taxes
mandated in Obamacare steal from those that have not consented, one may appeal
to the natural law to oppose Obamacare. At least some in the history of America
have thought taxation without consent was sufficient to justify resistance of
the government (do they still teach the reason for the American Revolution in
state schools?).
What of the argument from
compassion? This is merely the logical fallacy called a red herring. Those on
both sides of the debate can be heartless and both sides can show compassion.
The Christian is not allowed to rest on the non-compassionate side.
The main problem with the
argument is the assumption that Obamacare is compassionate. On the contrary,
the very structures that caused the health care crisis in the first place are
not only fortified with Obamacare- they are enhanced. What caused the current
‘crisis’ in our state? The most significant ones are those that separate the individuals who pay and those who use the services. As Rev. Robert Sirico points out, “If these
two were the same person … there would be powerful incentives to lower prices
and improve services.”[ii] Yet in state-sponsored
healthcare (i.e., Obamacare), there is an entire army of people between the
person paying and using the service. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out
that the more people involved in a process the more expensive it becomes. Competition
improves care and prices. Obamacare eliminates competition and exacerbates the
problem it is allegedly trying to solve. That is why costs for different healthcare
plans are rising in 45 of the 50 states of the union.[iii] In 11 states it will be
up over 100% of the previous year’s insurance plans. It is clear that this new
law is economically burdensome to many (many of us are already feeling the
effects of the poor economic choices of those in positions of authority have
made), and will lead to a reduction in services accessible across the board
(this will happen in various ways also with less goods and services ultimately
available as a result).
A second problem with
saying Obamacare has the edge in compassion is that a bureaucracy is inherently
and necessarily more detached from patient’s care than when only a few
individuals are involved. In a free-market where only a patient and doctor are
involved there is significantly greater opportunity for compassion, mercy, and
grace. This is not an abstract and unsubstantiated claim. Right now there are
news stories describing the destructive and uncompassionate consequences of
Obamacare. These include headlines of the millions that are losing their
healthcare across the country (more are losing the old plans than are signing
up for the new healthcare) and non-profit hospitals that offered free care to
the poor being fined as a result of the new regulations. Does this sound
compassionate to you?
The critic may wonder what
I would put in place of Obamacare to solve the problem. One assumption with
this challenge is that those critical of the plan must replace one bad governmental
policy with another. What does a doctor replace cancer with when he removes it
from someone’s body? Of course it
doesn’t mean that those in opposition have no plans better than the government’s.
However, the best ways to reform healthcare removes the coercive and
prohibitive governmental solutions which act as barriers to better healthcare.
We should just not assume that government intervention is benevolent like many
of those proposing these arguments, and should consider a free-market solution
to improving the health care crisis.
We should also be aware
that the entire foundation driving Obamacare- namely, that the federal
government knows how to manage your healthcare and its costs better than the
free market does- is entirely unsubstantiated. There have been numerous plans
set forth that recommend ways to improve the healthcare system for everyone,
and these do this without calling for unprecedented tax hikes for all Americans
(the tax increases will cost Americans well over 500 billion dollars with the
passage of Obamacare).[iv]
One of the foundational
principles of economics is that costs reflect prices created by the voluntary exchange between buyers and
sellers. Costs are out of control when there is no longer voluntary
exchange and people are between buyers and sellers (in other words, when there
is government intervention). For example, in an area that is most like the
free-market in healthcare- plastic surgery- which is not covered by insurance
and people must pay out-of-pocket, the cost increased 22% between 1992 and
2005. Contrast this with general healthcare costs over the same period of time
that increased over 77%![v]
Opposing Obamacare it is
entirely reasonable. This new ‘law’ passed by the government is economically
destructive, Biblically repugnant, and morally evil as it violates foundational
principles of natural law and opposes what is right and good at many
levels. One may also recognize several
ways to exercise your influence. You can vote for the person supporting your
view, and invest in them either with time or financially. Also, you can make
your case to others, and equip yourself about the facts with some of the
resources provided below.[vi] Lastly, you should
remember that the ultimate answers to the problems of man the government cannot
provide. As someone who has spent hundreds of hours ministering to the sick and
dying moments before they slip into eternity, I can assure you that both sides
of the political aisle are missing the most important thing. Christians must share
the good news. Rev. Robert Sirico reminds us, “Deep reform will require the Christian
community to once again seek out the vulnerable and in them to re-discover Christ,
the final source of healing and redemption, the balm of Gilead.”[vii]
[i]
For one particular example of this see: www.acton.org/print/5871
[ii]
Robert Sirico, “The Health of Nations: Why State-Sponsored Health Care is Not
Compassionate,” in Defending the Free
Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing,
2012): 143.
[iii] http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/10/how-will-you-fare-in-the-obamacare-exchanges
[iv]
http://report.heritage.org/bg2402
[v]
Devon M. Herrick, “National Healthcare Entrepreneurs: The Changing Nature of
Providers” (Policy Report n. 318, National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas,
Dec. 2008), www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st318.pdf
[vi] “Why
Obamacare Will Fail: A Reading List,” : http://mises.org/daily/3737
[vii]
Sirico, 151.
