My Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Jeffrey, this is a bit silly. Conservatives don’t believe in abandoning others to their fates, just that the government is not as effective at taking care of others as other means (churches, charities, businesses, etc).

Conservatives don’t believe in abandoning others to their fates, just that the government is not as effective at taking care of others as other means (churches, charities, businesses, etc).

Translation: Conservatives believe in feeding and caring for the poor, so long as someone ELSE does it.

This is a major annoyance for me, the habit of some leftists to use scripture to condemn those who disagree with their public policy preferences.

Translation: How dare you tell me to follow the teachings found in my own scriptures, especially those embraced by the founding prophet of my church!?!

Augh I messed up the hyperlink. Try this.

How’s that United Order working out these days?

I am someone who has experienced a chronic illness, along with an insurance company unwilling to pay, and thus having to spend thousands of dollars on my own. (I just spent $8,000 dollars Monday for a new round of tests- test, not even treatment!)

I have to say that I am completely and totally opposed to Universal Health Care.

For the following reasons:

1: The Government will screw up any attempt at implementation. In fact the reason we have so many problems in our Health Care system right now is because of the unintended effects of government programs dating back to wage controls during WWII. (See Milton Friedman’s 2000 article on the subject).

2: Even if by some miracle the government manages to be efficient for once, it will be too expensive, and the taxes/debt required to pay for it will harm the economy, and thus ultimately harm me, despite my supposed benefaction from such a program.

3: Most importantly, what Glenn Beck said is true. It’s immoral. Taking money from other’s by force is theft, and expressly violates 2 of the Ten Commandments. Government is Force, pure and simple. Ergo, the government taking monies in the form of taxes from one group of people and giving it to another just because a majority of Americans think the second group deserve it more is theft. (Note this is different from the purchase of services that benefit the public as a whole such as law enforcement- we are talking about transfer payments).

I have to say that it really ticks me off when liberals posture and claim they care for the poor so much, and then point to their seizure and “giving” of other people’s money as evidence.

Anybody who thinks that voting for the transfer of wealth from one person to another is somehow fulfilling the commandment to care for the poor is simply delusional.

Christ commanded us to share our wealth with the poor. Not taking somebody else’s wealth and share that wealth. That those who oppose such outrages are labeled as selfish (despite usually being generous with their own wealth), is a case of evil being called good, and good evil.

Just read some E.T Benson, J. Reuben Clark, or even comments by David O. McKay and Heber J. Grant.

Your refusal to even recognize the legitimacy of such a philosiphy as morally compatible with the gospel is outrageous.

Hey, I’m all for Universal Health Care. Has anyone here been to a VA hospital? That’s what you’re going to get except worse. At the VA, doctors don’t work late, they don’t do surgeries after 2pm. Doctors don’t work weekends or holidays. There is no motivation to work, they are government employees and salaried. They get paid no matter if they work a little or a lot. So, consequently, many work as little as possible.

However, I for one wouldn’t work in that system. I would work in a private hospital that took only self pay or private pay. I think I might even move to Mexico or Costa Rica and work at a hospital that served US citizens that have moved down there and living in communities where they don’t have to support the other millions of americans who refuse to take care of themselves. Even with universal health care, many of the best physicians would start up private hospitals that catered to those who pay. Universal Health Care would only make the divide worse between the have and have nots.

There is already Universal Health Care in the US. Noone can be turned away from an Emergency Room. I see people in the ER whether they can pay or not.

#3 Nick

“Translation: Conservatives believe in feeding and caring for the poor, so long as someone ELSE does it.”

Your translation is bad; this might be a more perfect translation:
Conservatives believe in feeding and caring for the poor, and want to DO IT THEMSELVES.

If the responsibility for the poor falls on a centralized government, that government becomes the “someone else” you’ve indicated. So people with more statist political philosophies are objectively the ones who want to move the responsibility for their neighbor on “someone else.”

Arguing for your government policy positions by impugning the motives of your opponents is bad form, by the way.

To all Mormons (of which I am one):

Stop trying to derive policy positions based on readings of scriptures. It’s beyond silly. Give any policy position for any political movement and you can probably find a scripture passage the “supports” your policy position. In the future please derive all policy positions based on thought, reason, and a coherent political philosophy.

John,

Thank you for your well wishes. Forgive me if I came on a little strong, but it irritates me that so often conservative seems to be reduced to “hates poor people”.

I thought I did make clear that a transfer program such as health care, welfare, and Social Security, is different from the use of taxes for the purchase of services that benefit the public as a whole such as law enforcement, public roadways, national defense, sanitation, and other public services.

There might some specific exceptions, and some argument as to what has a legitimate public benefit as opposed to benefiting specific people. I do not see the need to address that in this specific case, as I think it is clear that paying for and individual’s heath care with the money of other individual taxpayers is not as a rule a public benefit (vaccination programs, and the treatment of infectious diseases probably are).

My tax philosophy is that the expenditure of taxes on my personal needs is theft, and that voting for such proposals signifies my approval of such theft. Submitting to the collection of taxes is a duty, even when we disagree with the expenditure of those taxes. As many of our tax monies are used for legitimate public benefits, in my mind, the moral duty to resist being robbed is outweighed by out duty to submit to the rule of law, and our duty to pay our taxes to provide for legitimate public expenditures.

The ratio that comes back to me is irrelevant, which is why I pointed out my personal situation, as I might expect a Universal Health Care system to provide me with more benefits then I put in. My point is that as moral citizens we must consider who we are taking the money from before we start giving it away. Too often the person who pays taxes is the forgotten man. Nobody remembers him, and so he is treated without consideration as a human being, and instead treated like a slave.

I don’t see how refusing to pay taxes becomes a moral imperative anyways, as I must also consider the irresistible nature of the government. If a robber demands I hand my money over at gun point I would not feel it immoral to submit considering I would likely be killed if I did not. Although I guess there is a duty to society to resist such things I don’t think it’s on the same level as the commandment not to steal. I’ll have to think about it, as I’m having trouble articulating my feelings on the subject.

Dan,

You are confusing society with government. I suggest you re-read Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and consider that this confusion about the nature of society and government is what led to the very corruption that our founding fathers rebelled against.

It is very pleasing to think that government force will always be used for “good”, in the sense that you are forcing to people to spend their wealth to care for the poor. Something we would consider the right way to use our wealth.

First, you might notice how this violates free agency much more than statements about the immorality and morality of different actions. I am always confused by those who can not see the problem with supporting a liberal economic program, and then complaining that conservative moralists are impugning on peoples freedom by denouncing sinful behavior, and subjecting these behaviors to public derision.

Second, from a practical stand point, once you provide government with the authority to seize one man’s property and give it to another man, solely on the basis that the second man is more deserving, it is inevitable that the government will begin seizing the property of the poor and giving it to the rich and powerful.

Finally, I’d like to point out that Zion is completely different from Socialism. Socialism is the devil’s counterfeit, much as lust is the counterfeit for love. Zion can not be founded upon socialist principles, but only by voluntary submission to God.

Dan,

An additional note, it has nothing to do with think of the poor as “us” or “them”

Rather is has to do with anthropomorphizing Society (or the poor) as an individual, rather than recognizing that Society is an aggravate of individuals.

Society has no soul, nor does the government. Only individuals have souls, and thus it is as individuals that we must answer to God.

Cicero,
Actually its DOC, but no matter. You are confusing socialism and communism. Force is present in revolution, not democratic government, which theoretically at least, We have. Therefore the government represents us and is accountable to we the people. I realize this is the fundamental point on which we differ, and that’s okay. Reasonable people can disagree about these things.
I have to believe for society to exist at all, we have to be willing to share in our common wealth to some degree, whether it be medicine, science, security(law enforcement/defence)or Museums and National Parks (do you at least think these are okay or are they theft too?). The more we do the healthier (no pun intended) our society will be. Ultimately it makes all of us richer than we could ever be individually.
I also cannot understand why you are so sure healthcare belongs with social security and welfare and not national defense or law enforcement. Is not good health a way of magnifying our agency or increasing our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? I see a fundamental difference.

Dear Conservatives,

Man you guys are in for it on the other side. Let’s just hope they don’t have waterboards and McJobs in heaven.

Love,

FooboyX

FooboyX, thanks for your insightful comment. I don’t think there’s anything else to discuss now.

As a Mormon, one time strong conservative, now with more Libertarian, Moderate, Eclectic (expect to see me pushing that term more!) leanings, I actually have given this subject a fair bit of thought.

Hear me out, please, because this is ALMOST as hot of a topic as Same sex marriage, but I think I’ve got a better handle on this one (rather than that one, where I don’t think we can have a workable solution from the government).

First, I absolutely feel that Universal Health Care as promised by certain political candidates is a disaster. As someone earlier noted, while it works in other countries, it often works by people avoiding appointments and just showing up at the ER. Why? Because you can’t get an appointment for 6 months. Well, many problems are NOW, and won’t WAIT that long. Unfortunately.

So, any plan we implement has to avoid that pitfall. But it won’t. If a country the size of Sweden can’t make it work, a country that is MUCH bigger and more densely populated is going to have more problems, not less.

Arguments about morality are rather moot. Look, I absolutely agree with the point of view that it is, on some levels, somewhat immoral to overtax the people. The scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon) are replete with warnings about this (one of the great sins of King Noah? Taking a MERE one FIFTH! 20% of the peoples income! A LOT of people would be delighted with this situation). On the contrary, I also completely agree that it is deplorable that any society would allow those who are unable to pay for medical treatment to suffer. Regardless of why they cannot pay. Think about it. A man who works very hard every day of his life building homes for someone, is extremely skilled as a laborer, and then is diagnosed with cancer is not going to be able to pay the bills on his own. If he is lucky enough to work for a large construction company that can pay for good medical insurance, then he _might_ be covered.

Knowing what I know about genetics, inborn ability, environmental predisposition, etc., I cannot say that everyone has the ability in life to earn enough money to make it in life to the point where they can cover their own medical expenses.

So, can we all agree on that? If so, then lets move on. Some people can cover their own expenses many times over, some people cannot.

So then, there are essentially three methods of handling this situations, which is this: we need, as a society, to cover those who do not have the means to pay for their own medical bills, regardless of what they are, including (and I am absolutely adamant about this) quality dental care (because I need about 10k of dental I can’t afford!).

First, and this is what many liberals, including two presidential candidates, wish to do, we could implement a government controlled, tax-payer funded system of health-care. This could take many forms, but most would be mandatory participation in terms of insurance.

Second would be a form of private business backed system. This is what some conservatives favor, but has not evolved.

Third would be a completely charity based system. This is what some other conservatives favor, and has also not evolved.

Of course what we have now is that a lot of people simply are not covered.

Or, if they are, they are not covered adequately. My brother, who makes a reasonable amount of money, avoids the doctor as much as possible simply because of the cost because he owns his own business and cannot get the same type or rates on insurance as a much larger company could.

Over time I have come to favor a blended solution where government steps in and simply states that insurance companies must offer a global rate to EVERYONE. Thus, those who own small businesses or were otherwise self-employed could still afford the same level of insurance that I enjoy (which is QUITE good).

To cover those who still could not afford insurance, or who were otherwise uninsured, hospitals would be encouraged to operate on the St. Jude method–setting up large donation funds to which individuals and organizations could easily donate, knowing that those funds would go to cover the cost of paying for health care. At the end of each year, a third of the fund (or some other amount) would be used to reduce the amount that was needed to be charged to the insurance companies, so that those companies could reduce the cost of their insurance.

Is this plan perfect? No, but it would offer some level of government oversight, without the government actually running the health-care system, which I think is essential to success in the USA. It would also offer a method of allowing those who want to donate money to those who need health-care to do so. It would care for those who could not afford insurance, it would allow those who could afford insurance to do so without being placed in a bind because they do not happen to be affiliated with a company with thousands of employees (and thus large collective bargaining power).

I’m sure people will spot flaws in my reasoning, and I really don’t mind. What I want to do is point out that we do need a change. I think that both conservatives and liberals agree on that. The solution is the difference. Both truly want the poor to be cared for (for the most part–there are some conservatives who don’t care, but they are unworthy of the name, and I hope that Glenn Beck is not really among that camp), but some feel that the role of government should be more limited. I tend to feel that in most cases government should be limited, but this is a case where the current system is plainly failing and we must change it. I will not accept that the liberal solution is the only or best solution, but neither will I accept that we must rely only on charity. I think a combination of charity, private business and government regulation can achieve the desired goal of caring for the poor and needy while not imposing an undue or immoral burden on the rest of society, thus allowing everyone their agency, and the opportunity to receive greater blessings by choosing to assist those in need. And I believe that they will. I know that I would as I am able.

It’s immoral. Taking money from other’s by force is theft, and expressly violates 2 of the Ten Commandments.
Conservatives and liberals both want to help people in need, they just have different methods of accomplishing the same goal. Coercive philanthropy is an evil which is destructive to the giver and the receiver. It is the satanic counterfit of true philanthropy. Many well meaning and good people are taken in by it. True philanthropy is inspired by the love God bestows upon us, and is beneficial to both the giver and receiver.

Speaking as a physician, actually the VA works quite well. It’s not the Ritz, but it generally gets the job done. I agree with others here that a single payer system is the way to go. It will be much cheaper than any system that includes the current insurance infrastructure. In 2000, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost 200 billion dollars less than Bush’s plan and a lot more less than Gore’s plan. Nader is the only Presidential candidate who supports a single payer plan.

Long waits for appointments is the anecdotal experience in Sweden, but I think that is not characteristic of all socialized health care systems. I lived in Japan for two years and you could get an appointment quite quickly there. On the other hand, sometimes patients have to wait months for apppointments in the USA. No matter what you think of Michael Moore, you should watch his movie, “Sicko.” It’s very instructive on this issue.

As for the Mormon view of taking money by force from people to care for the poor as being wrong, the Lord states that the world is in sin because there are those who possess more than others. Thus, to be wealthy and not share your wealth is to steal from the Lord. To tax citizens seeking to even the playing field and take care of our elderly and orphans etc, surely is not an abomination in the sight of the Lord.

Laying aside whether it is a sin to tax or a sin not to tax to help poor people (which is a question I’ve already argued cannot be answered through scripture in #30), I want to say something regarding a single payer system, specifically in regards to #35 and #38.

Over time I have come to favor a blended solution where government steps in and simply states that insurance companies must offer a global rate to EVERYONE.

I agree with your point that we should try to find a way to help the poor. I don’t think there’s a debate there. But what do you mean by this comment? Do you mean that everyone should have the same rate, regardless of health? Should an insurance company be forced to give a smoker the same rate as he gives me? Or are you just saying that big businesses should not be given a better deal than small businesses? I strongly disagree with the former, but somewhat agree with the latter. Some regulation is necessary, but this strikes me as over-regulation, and if we’re going to go this far then we’ve destroyed to incentive for the private market to offer insurance in the first place, and you might as well just have the government supply it.

The biggest problem is that the insurance companies, who add NO value to actual medical care, keep billions (Billions!)of our health care dollars for themselves.

They don’t add value to medical care, but they definately add value to people’s lives in general. They add the value of allowing people who otherwise would have no way to pay for care for catastrophic events to be able to afford them by assuming the risk on the company instead of on an individual. Risk is something that a company can deal with when mitigated diversified risk. But risk can destroy an individual. So I’d say that’s valuable.

No more having bean counters at the big, wasteful, bureaucratic insurance companies telling you “Denied” to tests and procedures and medicines that your doctor knows you need. Health care will be back in the hands of those who are the medical experts, your doctor.

I agree that the insurance system needs reforming to minimize cases where people are denied for care that they need and are legimately covered for, but are you suggesting that this pool of money you are talking about should be accessible by doctors without accountability? If the doctor says you need the test, and you get it, the doctor can then reach his hand into the pot and take out the money to pay for the procedure (including compensation for himself)? This seams like a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying doctors are crooks any more than anyone else. But any system where poeple have access to money without accountability is bound to be taken advantage of. There needs to be someone in the position of reviewing the necessity and yes, in some cases, denying coverage for unnecessary procedures. I’d even rather see the government overseeing it than no one.

I think the free market is, hypothetically, a good way to make that oversight happen because you have an incentive on both sides. The doctor has the incentive to provide good care, so that he will get paid. The insurance company has the incentive to make sure they’re not paying for unnecessary procedures, but also has the incentive to pay for necessary procedures because if it doesn’t, people will switch insurance companies. But of course, in practice, there are many flaws to how this works that need to be fixed. But I disagree with both your solutions in #35 and #38.

Jeff (#36), what day was this on? If it was recent it might be on my DVR. (Yes, I just admitted that I TIVO Glenn Beck)

Using King Benjamin to argue that universal government-provided healthcare is a moral imperative (in spite of the fact that I personally happen to support such a system and think we could do a more efficient job providing healthcare to citizens here along those lines than we currently are) is really nonsense. Using King Benjamin to criticize Mr. Beck’s specific rationale for opposing universal healthcare is totally reasonable and appropriate.

If you give the insurance company $100 for health care, they’ll keep $30 and put $70 to use providing care.

And because they made that $30, other people want to get in on it and start moving their own companies into the insurance business, which creates more competition, which encourages companies to cut their prices by either taking less profit or encouraging the medical community to find more efficient ways to do things that cost less. What your comparison leaves out is that because of the competition of the free-market, the $70 the insurance companies pays might go further than the $95 dollars the government pays in a single-payer system where there is no incentive to cut costs and become more efficient, since there is no competition. What we need is more competition, not less.

There will be plenty of controls and oversight to be sure that our sacred health care dollars will be spent providing health care for us.

I’m sure that’s what they said about social security. How long will it be before the government starts “borrowing” from the pot of money in the single-payer system? Just because it’s in the bill doesn’t mean it’s going to happen the way they want it to. Once healthcare is no longer a hot issue, legislatures will do what they want with that money to fund the next big thing. I wouldn’t mind the single-payer system if I had more faith in the government to do what is right rather than what will get them elected.

I don’t mean to come down so hard on the single-payer idea. I’m actually not against it as much as some conservatives. Just to prove I’m not a mindless conservative (I am conservative, just not mindless, to be clear), I do think that there does need to be some government subsidies to help those who are too poor to afford insurance, or who have medical conditions that are not the result of their own bad choices and therefore have a harder time getting insurance. The government could give tax credits to insurance companies for every poor person they insure on a sliding scale, or for someone they insure with such a medical condition, which would bring down prices for both groups. That can be combined with tax credits for the very poor so that perhaps they wouldn’t have to pay for insurance at all. We can restructure the tax code so that it will be revenue nuetral for both the government and the insurance companies, which would just mean that the rich would have to pay a bit more for insurance since the insurance companies would have more of an incentive to cover the poor and sick than they currently do. In a sense we’re making it profitable for insurance companies to make their products accessible (which means cheaper) to the poor.

And I do support some limited regulation (a naughty word for hard-line conservatives) for insurance companies to cover important care, and more importantly to be clear about what they don’t cover and what they do so that the consumer can make an informed choice. Regulation needs to be limited in order to promote more competition, however.

I’ll note that on the trip my wife and I took to celebrate our 20th, we ended up sitting next to a recruiter who hires doctors to go work in England. A specialist surgeon, who puts in some steady overtime and who is at the top of the ladder makes about 100k Euros a year.

By comparison, when I take the depositions of orthopedic surgeons just out of residency, they are typically making 2-3 million dollars a year.

I have personally worked at the Bishops storehouse. I have worked in soup kitchens. My Stuff a bus program raised millions of dollars in food for the CT foodbank in the 1990′s. We as a family are working to send those in need to college. I do many fundraisers for those less fortunate. I do not say these things to hold myself out, but rather to make the point: Smaller government is not about lower taxes. I believe it is about a higher law. Hiring someone (which is what we do when we expand the government) to do what the Lord would have US do is not what he requires of us.

The answer is always WE THE PEOPLE.

Every time I serve, I learn and I SEE. My eyes are open to the need around me. I have never noticed the need around us on April 15th. Instead I see waste. No where does the Lord tell us to create a government program to help others, he tells US to do it.

Need is not just about those we take time to serve. The Lord knows it is about us as well. Many of us, and I include myself in this, are in need of more empathy and greater spiritual vision. I find by helping others personally, they help me. It is the same principle I find to be so true every time I do my home teaching.

gb

Glenn, or whoever you are.:)

As is clear from my previous comments, I’m as against government run health-care as much as you, but I disagree with you on one point:

No where does the Lord tell us to create a government program to help others, he tells US to do it.

While technically true, it should be pointed out that when Christ taught the sermon on the mount, he was teaching a minority people. Now we live in a nation that is predominantly Christian. What would the Lord have said to a king if that king believed him and wanted to incorporate his teachings into the governing of the kingdom? I have no idea, and as I said before, you can’t use scripture to argue for or against government run healthcare.

But on your greater point that it is our responsibility to help the poor, I agree.

I am a Jackie Mormon married to a Wisconsin Cathloic, my mother-in-law works for the church in Milwaukee. I believe, and always haved, In the teaching of the Book of Mormon. My brother served on a mission and tryed to pull me back in but when you can’t find a mormon to “date” its hard to stay involved.
I am a Glenn Beck watcher and I can’t believe this is being said. I guess I didn’t go to the same church as some of you all,Rick M did. We were always taught that we should and could take care of ourselves. That is how my step fathers grandmother pushed her hand cart across the country. She took care of it herself. What has happened to the strength of the Mormon people. I was taught to be strong and work hard and share with those who shared in the work, even if they were peeling potatos.
Do you forget that we have an ever changing world, which includes our goverment. I see the chatter on this subject stopped a long time ago, alot has changed since this was first written. I hope some minds have changed too. Our goverments mind changes everyday depending on what lobbyist is buying lunch.

I couldn’t find my way back to this page once I left.

I don’t think the scriptures would want us to let the government be in control of our bodys. The mass buaracy the government creates to take on the health care issue would make Joseph Smith turn on his heals. Do you believe that Joseph Smith would have handed over his and his followers money to the government and said ok now you can take care of us. He left because they wouldn’t let him teach his beliefs to the people that wanted to hear. Mr Obama’s plan is a way to apease the masses for the moment. Our country and beliefs are bigger and stronger than they ever have been.

I watched the original new broadcast of the moon landing last night just like many others, I was brought to tears by the way our country has changed over the last 40 years. We all need to be involved in our contry and our neighborhoods. It isn’t fair that a few have to take care of the ones who don’t want to work or don’t want to take responsibilty for their actions. I am so tired of way we have let our thoughts be reshaped. It is not ok that a woman I met in Wisconsin hasn’t ever gotten any money from her childs father, even though he is court ordered to do so. Or the woman in Nevada who has to chase down her ex-husband once a year to get money for son, and when she catches him on the phone he can’t understand why she is so hostile and mean.

This is what we have let happen and this rules for radicals idealisms have got to stop. You may not want to see it but everything this man is doing is driving the nail in the coffin of our former beliefs. I didn’t have healthcare for most of my life.I had a doctor, I had to get rounds of shots that my mother paid for. I was born with a hip disorder and had to have my hips broke and reset at 1 year old. I had to wear a body cast for 3 months and had to have it replaced once. All this my mother paid for out of her own pocket. When I got older my mom told me if you ever get real sick go get into your car and run it into a tree because we have hospital coverage on our auto insurance. That was the joke in our house and luckily we never had to use it,Because we never had a bad auto wreck.

There weren’t many of us yet we helped each other. We lived together if we needed to we shared a car and cut each others hair.
This healthcare bill is saying that we don’t help our own and we have to have the government take care of us. We have to change the way our insurance companys do business, yes but we need to help each other.
I have had family get help from the church and when they were back on their feet they paied it back and then some. You see when you get help form somebody you know cares about you, you want to pay it back as soon as you can. It gives you pride of getting things back together. If you get “Free” you don’t have that same need to pay it back. Our youth need to learn that. Most kids today have a sense of entitalment towards everything. If we are going to have enough Doctors and Nurses in out future they need to want to give back. Not for the money, but because they are free to be the kind of doctor they want to be.