Bryan Fischer is a dolt: Redistributionist Sinners Edition

Bryan Fischer leaps onto Dr. Donald Berwick, the new chief of Medicare, on what he has said about health care.

Donald Berwick: “Excellent health care is by nature redistributional.”

Bible: “You shall not steal.”

Donald Berwick: “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”

Bible: “You shall not covet…anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Donald Berwick, the new head of Medicare, makes his first appearance before Congress today, testifying before the Senate Finance Committee.

His approach to health care reform obviously involves taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This is nothing more than legalized theft, plunder under the color of law.

And it is predicated, as all of liberalism is, on an envy of the wealthy and productive. There is a seething resentment among liberals that some in our culture have while others do not, a resentment that finds expression in the forcible taking of the assets of the productive and its transfer to the unproductive. That is nothing more than ugly greed. Thus liberalism, and ObamaCare in particular, is predicated on a gross, deliberate violation of two of God’s Ten Commandments.

Got that?  Health care for all, providing a basic level of helping the sick (and, even better, preserving health before it fails) isn’t motivated by care, compassion, a sense of decency, a civilized attitude, a desire to help, a feeling of societal duty, or even religiously-driven love of one’s fellow man.

No, Bryan knows the ugly secret.  It’s all about envy, plunder, greed, envy, and a gross deliberate (deliberate!) desire to violate two of God’s Ten Commandments.

How he gets that from Dr. Berwick’s statements surpasseth all understanding, of course, but I’m sure his animus toward Obama, liberalism, or … um, guys named Berwick have nothing do with it.

It is not as if the Bible does not believe in the transfer of wealth, for it surely does. But what the Bible teaches is that such a transfer must be voluntary.

Actually, the Bible seems perfectly fine with taxation. It’s not discussed in the Old Testament much, but one assumes the Kingdom of Israel had taxes.  In the New Testament, Jesus himself okays it and (just) tax collectors as well.

And, of course, in our political system, taxation is, in fact, voluntary — voluntary in that we have representation to reflect the volition of the majority, an amendable Constitution that allows for taxation, and, of course, the freedom to leave any time you don’t like it.

Any of those can be abused, of course — but that’s true of any act of majoritarian rule.

The early church had no needy among them, not because the heavy hand of government took from some at the point of a sword and gave to others, but because generous individuals willingly brought of their wealth, “laid it at the apostles; feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 4:35).

And if those who were without health care (and food, and clothing, and shelter, and work) were, in fact, provided for by the voluntary donations of the rest of society, there would be no problem, and no need for the government (of the people) to be involved in such things.  Perhaps Bryan would be better off encouraging modern-churchgoers to give more generously.

Capitalism is grounded on the biblical principles of hard work, self-reliance, compassion and generosity.

Capitalism has nothing to do with compassion and generosity.Technically speaking, capitalism is:

… an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

I don’t see anything about compassion or generosity there, or any place those virtues would reside. Capitalism can be highly effective in a variety of ways, and those ways can benefit a lot of people — but it’s no more Biblical than, say, a helicopter, or an alarm clock.

Arguably, capitalism in the modern US (at least so far as, let’s say, the health care and health insurance industries, since we’re discussing health care) has little to do with self-reliance, and only marginally to do with hard work.

Socialism, on the other hand, is rooted in the thoroughly unbiblical principles of theft, greed, class warfare, envy, and the punishment of the productive. Such principles are not just unbiblical, they are evil and socially destructive.

First, it’s worth nothing that “ObamaCare” is not socialism, except in such a way as to extend the definition far past the breaking point.

Secondly, um … “sez you.”  That little diatribe is so emotional that it’s impossible to challenge any factual assertion because there are so few facts asserted, only “Socialism is a bunch of doo-doo heads.”

Command control of economies and handling of all wealth by autocrats is, in fact, not something I believe is either efficient or just.  But that’s hardly what we have in this country — at least so far as its government is concerned.

Bottom line: the involuntary transfer of wealth is fundamentally immoral. The voluntary transfer of wealth, on the other hand, is noble and compassionate. Donald Berwick of involuntary transfer infamy is promoting a profoundly wrongheaded and un-American political philosophy, and deserves every last bit of grilling he might get today.

Government is, ultimately, the joint transfer of wealth to causes directed by the powers of government (who are, in theory, us, through our elected representatives) (remember that whole “no taxation without representation?”).  Everything the government does, involving money, seems to represent what Bryan would consider an “involuntary transfer of wealth,” which he would then consider “fundamentally immoral.”

That would seem to me to mean, not just “ObamaCare,” but Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and other Welfare, unemployment insurance, the VA, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard, the space program, customs, roads, schools, air traffic control, the salaries of every government worker, the police, fire departments, the Centers for Disease Control, customs inspectors, food inspectors, building inspectors, national / state / county / local parks, sewage systems, water systems, flood systems, libraries, road signs …

Pretty much the entire government.

Instead, Bryan seems to think (or at least be arguing, since I don’t think he really believes it) that we will all get along in harmony by being charitable to one another, giving as we see morally fit (as directed by orthodox Christian churches, no doubt, in Bryan’s view) to those causes we feel are worthwhile, and all will be magically well — all will be fed, sheltered, clothed, free, and holy.  And if they’re not … well, I’m sure there’s some sinfulness somewhere that will be responsible for it.  Probably the Muslims. Or the Gays. Or the Liberals.

But if some dies because they couldn’t afford medicine, or food, or a decent place to live … well, better that than that one person be compelled to have their wealth “redistributed.” Because the Bible clearly says so.

Personally, I’d call that “profoundly wrongheaded and un-American,” not to mention “fundamentally immoral.”