Nationalized Healthcare – Morally Wrong

Nationalized healthcare is more than just economically disastrous and a service nightmare, it is morally wrong.

A long article could be written on the disastrous impact on the economy that instituting socialized medicine will have.  The huge tax burden this type of program creates seriously stifles private investment and raises cost of doing business.  Countries like England have lost just about every industry because the cost of doing business became so great after the institution of socialized medicine.  Another long article could be written about the lower quality and decreased service that will come from socialized medicine (there is no reason to think we can do it better than other countries).  However, the argument against national healthcare in this article is that national healthcare is morally wrong.

 

Christ taught that we are to feed the sick, clothe the naked administer relief to the sick and afflicted.  He said,

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.  (Mathew 25:35-36)

Who helped him while he was sick? Was it an agent of Rome?  I can not find where He said “The government paid me a visit and took care of all that ailed me.” 

 

The Lord tells us that we are responsible for taking care of the needy.

And remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple. (D&C 52: 40)

 

We also can read about groups of people who were properly caring for the needy-

And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. (Alma 1: 27)

 

We have a moral obligation as individuals and groups to take care of the truly needy. Putting in national healthcare usurps that responsibility from the people.  Such social programs will certainly stifle charitable acts because people will say “the government is taking care of everyone. There is no need for my help.  Besides, I pay tons of taxes to take care of others.”   Again, as the Lord was telling his followers what kind of acts his true disciples perform and those who will inherit His Kingdom (Mathew 25:34).  He did not say “You have paid your taxes in full.  Enter into the rest of my Kingdom.”  When it comes to the needs of others, can the government ever act with compassion in addressing those needs?  Do I need to even bother answering such a question? 

 

Christ never once told his disciples or others in our day that Rome or other respective governments should be the ones providing relief to those in need.  In fact, in these last days, the Lord has told us in the US that “…for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose…” (D&C 101:80)  The Lord claims the Constitution as His, and as such is much like other revealed words of the Lord. 

 

The Preamble is relevant here.  The federal government will “… provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”  Notice some words.  The government's purpose is to “provide” the defense, but only to “promote” the general welfare not to provide it.  The government is not intended to “provide” for our general needs.  The word difference is important.

 

The other major moral issue is that we loose freedom and liberty with national healthcare as well as with other social programs. Giving the government control of such a large portion of our lives necessarily requires us to give up liberty. If the government has control of healthcare they will tell you when you can receive treatment, what treatment you can receive, and whether or not you are eligible for treatment.  This is the whole point of only “promoting” the general welfare.  The fundamental blessings of liberty require that we be free to make our own way in life including taking care of ourselves and our families from the industry of our own hands.  Socialism breeds laziness and a dependency that shackles the recipients to those in power.  We get these programs sold to us under the idea that everything is so bad that the government has got to take control of these areas of our life for the good of us all.  Otherwise the poor may just expire.  The real result is that the government gains more control over our lives, and this control will not be easily relinquished once it has been taken.  This is why, fundamentally, socialism is contrary to any principle of freedom.

 

Nationalized healthcare is more than just economically disastrous and a service nightmare, it is morally wrong.  The help and care of the sick and poor belongs on individuals and groups, not the government.  Socialism in any form destroys liberty.  There may be problems with which the government can help to “promote” solutions, but taking control to “provide” the solution brings bondage.

 

Roger Lindsay resides in Idaho and works as and engineer in R&D for a semiconductor company.  He holds 11 US patents for methods of building semiconductors.  He has a BBA in business from Boise State University and will soon hold an MBA from Westen Governors University.