Letter: Jesus’ reference to leadership wasn’t about medical care
Published: October 12, 2009
Jesus’ reference to leadership wasn’t about medical care
Jim Evans writes, “Jesus’ insight about to whom much is given much is required, applies to every resource on this planet, from corn to penicillin.” By quoting Jesus out of context, Evans enlists him as a drum major for a government monopoly on health care.
In context (Luke 12), Jesus tells a parable about a manager who gets drunk and beats up the servants under his supervision. He says, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
Jesus is talking to his “managers,” his handpicked, inner circle of disciples on whom he has lavished three years of instruction, and he is reminding them about their leadership responsibilities, explaining that a breach of responsibility is deeply sinful for them. Any serious Christian “manager,” including Evans, knows that Jesus was talking about leadership responsibilities in the church and not about corn and penicillin.
Evans writes, “It is a gross national sin for us to have the medical resources we have and then only provide them to people who can pay for them.” But “we” don’t own any medical resources. We don’t own the expertise of medical doctors who invest a quarter-million dollars in graduate education, or multi-million dollar hospitals, or life-saving medicines and technology.
America built the finest medical system on earth by rewarding doctors, inventors, hospital investors and chemists for their sacrifices with competitive returns in the free market. In contrast to countries with government medical monopolies, Americans can choose their physicians, schedule immediate appointments and receive state-of-the-art treatment.
If government “managers” foolishly destroy this national treasure, we do great harm to the “servants” in our care.
Bruce Murray
Auburn
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Notwithstanding we have both stipulated as to the bias of, at least one of the principal investigators, the actual methodology appears of reasonably sound design, particularly concerning sample size, and controls for representative population, employment, tobacco, alcohol, exercise, BMI and ethnic over sampling.
What methodologically might one specifically point to within the study that fails to follow sound study and statistical analysis design? Can one reasonably conclude there is no association between health insurance and mortality? If so, which CI’s were incorrectly formulated or calculated that contradicts the probability of an associative relationship?
It appears quite reasonable to suspect the investigators have an agenda, David has been very open about his views for over 20 years, however, the data are what the data are. As we have both implied, the extent of the conclusion is easily challenged, but the fundamental association not consistent with critical consideration?
What am I missing here?
David
good morning
i pray this finds u well
David Kern said “ an objective reader can, at least, surmise a clear and substantial associative relationship between the lack of health insurance and deaths per year”
yes… inside the parameters of this papaer (and possibly only there)
wow… the ‘objective reader’ could read this paper (which i just did 2x) and realize this is not an objective papaer, as the papaer heavily editoralizes from the preface on, and this papaer appears to have bias toward the need for health care from the preface on
so ..uh… yes acording to the parameters of this study there might b an association… but there lies the problem…a guestament of maybe at best
i do however appreciate the link…again it was a neat side step to the 5 or so papers i have to review for publication today
we will have to agree to disagree
the pro health care folks can point to it and say theres your proof we need it… while i will have to say… we might need it (i wish everyone was insured) but this papaer didn’t prove it to me…at all…
keep the faith
Good morning,
An open link to a second draft of the chief study in question can be found at:
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
Yes, David Himmelstein has been an avid supporter for a single payer “Medicare style” delivery system for many years, however, the methods employed by David and colleagues represent a reasonable effort to reduce a multifactorial question of great complexity to a less complex extrapolated correlation with substantial statistical significance.
Of course, the study can’t be methodologically perfect, nor can it prove 45,000 die as a direct result of not having health insurance, but an objective reader can, at least, surmise a clear and substantial associative relationship between the lack of health insurance and deaths per year.
David
hero Capt
u said “I feel bad bringing up the Harvard/Cambridge study as that gets us partially off what Bruce Murray wrote”
i appreciate that… but i don’t hate u briought it up, it had great points (i don’t agree with the headlines) but great point
i enjoyed reading the paper(abstract) u sited (beats the heck out of watching forensic sci on tube or reading about worms in goats, which is slowly turning into my whole life…sad)
glad to hear u will b home soon…b safe
keep up the great work, b safe, and keep the faith
Hey Doc, There was some research in the early 1990s using this same methodology that I think had the deaths from “lack” of insurance at a little less than 20K per year. We lose less than this per year in alcohol related deaths.
I feel bad bringing up the Harvard/Cambridge study as that gets us partially off what Bruce Murray wrote. For instance, he referenced a “government monopoly” on health care. Huh? No such plan exists in the halls of Congress.
Professor Murray also said that “we don’t own any medical resources”. I was pondering this in that I thought some of our tax dollars went to supporting many hospitals, much research, most medical schools, and the like. We’re all in this together it seems to me.
Gee, mpb3, what a great idea! Bruce Murray can run circles around Jim Evans regarding the “holy version of the truth.“
It would be nice if this newspaper still had a person on the religion page who actually discusses religion instead of Evans’ unholy version of the truth of politics.
Interesting how you feel the need to mock Bruce instead of challenge him intellectually. Typical leftist tactic. If you can’t discuss something on merit, you just resort to petty snarkiness.
Careful, dear, your true colors are showing.
mpb3 said “BTW, DG, how do you know Jesus was apolitical?“
great question…i do not know…but strongly suspect, Biblically he said (paraphrased from the Bible my dumb me) ‘my kingdom is not of this world’
he appeared to avoid political entanglements…even suggested that people of the day ‘ render unto caesar (pay, obey laws ????) what is caesar, and unto God which is God’s”
other portions from the Bible suggest he even avoided the zionist movement of the day (as judas appeared to b involoved with)... but clearly he was a spiritual leader (even if u do not believe he is the son of God)
new-vo and revisionist will say he was politcal, but i can not find such in the Bible ...but am always looking to b proven wrong (as i have by u prior to this…and if u recall… i admitted it…as i am often wrong)
i pray u re well
keep the faith
Captain plaid - my hero
thanks and i read the abstract of the study by Dr Wilper in that u site from the article by David Cecere, i didn’t feel like buying the Journal
this is an estimate of potential deaths…maybe.. from the uninsured
it is thought provking, but an estimate
at best, like many of the recent public health articles. if i belive the authors are agneda-less and apolitical (which i do not know..and don’t care) i would have drawn much different conclusions than the article writer David Cecere(real headline grabbing)
Dr Wilper (the Journal paper’s primary author) has already had to respond to critcism to other research published in the same J…not to mean he is wrong about this point… but…
the primary article Captain sites (with and in his usual good faith) is making some leaps
anyway..thanks
Captain…we might not agree on some stuff…but u do believe what u say, and u do try to back it up
keep the faith
p/s: we had a great BBQ in waverly this past wkend…great time and made money for the town
hbd1932, I am not a scientist so thus await Doc or another’s analysis. From what I’ve read, and the study was covered rather extensively, it seems to make sense to this fellow. If this dash of humility tickles you then so be it. Would you be willing, and I’ll not even ask if you are so qualified, to tell us how the study is flawed?
The Capt. offered “facts”, but admits that, “I have no idea how valid it(the article or study) is.“
Too funny… papadoc I appreciate you asking for documentation, your a stand up guy.
Advertisement