CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program) vs. The State of Texas: A Challenge to Faith Based Organizations

And Jesus said, (Pick Two):

a. "If a man asks for your coat; give him your cloak as well."
b. "If a man ask for your coat; refuse him. But form a committee within your institution (church, synagogue, mosque, or private charity), to lobby the government, and to tax your countrymen unequally, so that you may collectively buy a coat for every man."
c. "Go and sell your possessions; and give the money to the poor."
d. "Go and persuade the government to seize the property of your countrymen, and distribute it to the poor."

I do not believe it is the job of the government to provide certain services. Healthcare and insurance are among those certain services. It is incumbent upon faith based organizations and private institutions to step in where democratic government, by definition, should not.

This is, of course, contrary to the stated mission of Texas IMPACT (www.texasimpact.com). Texas IMPACT and the UMW (United Methodist Women) recently produced an event dinner focusing on the welfare of Texas' children (25% without healthcare insurance according to some estimates). The statistics related, point to the lack of healthcare INSURANCE for Texas' children, but say nothing about children going without HEALTHCARE. There's a big difference which those studies fail to report. Many people don't want insurance. Some people can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it. It's a free country, and that's their choice. If there is a need; it is for healthcare, not insurance. Adding a bureaucratic layer of insurance to people who aren't paying for it in the first place, simply drives up the cost of the very healthcare they seek.

In my work, I travel the back streets of Dallas County, and go into the homes of crime victims. I'm talking about slums (still they are palaces compared to what I've seen in India and Guatemala). I see crime. I see garbage. I see drug abuse and the resulting malaise. And I see a lot of children. What I do not see, are throngs of sick emaciated children. They simply aren't there.

So if the children of Texas are generally ok, then who is this money for? Forgive my cynicism, but you (proponents of CHIP) are taking food off my table, so I have a right to question you. Why the focus on insurance instead of healthcare? Is it for someone in a government bureaucracy, some insurance company, a clinic, a hospital, or an activist group? Far be it from me to suggest that all proponents of CHIP have an ulterior motive. In fact I believe that most are sincere. However, absent the aforementioned throngs of emaciated, diseased children; I cannot see past the suspicion that someone

somewhere must be missing the money or the notoriety that they used to get from this program. And there, right there, if you dig deep enough, you will find the actual engine behind this program. And there you will find a politician, a bureaucrat, a lawyer, a doctor, or a businessman, hiding behind the word "Children" in order to line his or her
pockets, or put a feather in the cap of his or her political career. Please follow me along a path that will truly benefit children; not just in word but in deed TRUELY benefit children in the long run.

The issue of healthcare for children in Texas is bound at the hip with the immigration crisis. What would be the statistics for insured children if you left out illegal immigrants? I'm not implying that illegal immigrants are any less valuable as human beings than people who are here legally. Nor am I cold to the legitimate needs of children who have "fallen through the cracks" of the State welfare system. I do question the legitimacy of some children's citizenship, whose illegal immigrant parents conveniently timed their child's birth to occur on U.S. soil, solely for the purpose of sponging off the government. What's to stop people from rushing across the border for their share of the healthcare/insurance some Texans are so willing for all of us to subsidize? (The answer is: nothing.) It is no secret that county hospitals and health clinics are overwhelmed with illegal immigrants. Subsidizing healthcare and insurance drives up the cost for us all.

And IF we were to continue along with socialized healthcare/insurance (That's what CHIP is); what message are we sending to these children? Miram Bujanda asks, 'Do you know any undeserving 4 year old?'. That truly sickens me. Yes Mam, I do. No child I know deserves healthcare, much less heath insurance, from an underperforming, inefficient, bureaucrat-hamstrung, top-heavy, government program. I wouldn't wish that kind "care" on anyone. Ms. Bujanda would have us raising children to believe that they are entitled to healthcare from cradle to grave. This mentality combined with the immigration problem, invites hundreds of thousands of blandly-inane, low-wage-earning people to come into this country and vote the rest of us into a tax increase for their own perceived, short-term benefit. It's happening now. Observation: since children have no legal status apart from their parents; guess who are the true beneficiaries of CHIP? Who is minding whatever fiscal benefit they realize from the CHIP program? How do we know they aren't buying six packs and lottery tickets with the surplus created within their own domicile, now that they are no longer responsible for their child's own healthcare/insurance? That leads me to the subject of the murmurings of a State Income Tax.

One reason that Texas is the 8th largest economy in the world (according to Ms. Bujanda, Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy for Methodist Healthcare Ministries in San Antonio) is that Texas is a business friendly state. Businesses in Texas can offer lower wages here, because it costs less to live here. Enact a state income tax, expand government give-aways, restrict business and free trade, and watch the economy plummet. That's a promise. (I always marvel at how capriciously liberals wave their tax wand. Do they not realize that hurting everyone to help a few, has disastrous consequences for all? These consequences often compound the very problem they seek to solve.)

Governor Perry made a bold move not to include CHIP in the budget. (I would like to see more government programs eliminated.) For Carol Keeton-Strayhorn to imply that Gov. Perry balanced the budget on the backs of children, or that this was the only budget cut, is intellectually dishonest. The Governor obviously takes his commitment to balance the budget very seriously. For that he is to be applauded not ridiculed. More politicians should consider giving fiscal responsibility a try. And whether or not there's money for CHIP is irrelevant. There can't be much, or there wouldn't be any talk of a tax increase. Funding our education system is a "whole 'nuther kettle of fish", on which I'll share opinions another time.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, we Americans have lost sight of what government is about. And it applies as well, to The Great State of Texas. Government is here to serve the COMMON good. Government is here to protect us from attack and invasion, to uphold and enforce peace, provide a forum in court for dispute, and to build and maintain infrastructure. Economically, democracy implies that we are only entitled to what we earn. It is socialism that implies the forced redistribution of wealth. That's, what CHIP calls for; and many other government programs like it, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We've seen the end result of socialism in the former U.S.S.R., and in the oppressive government of Communist China. Few people would point to the communistic experiment of Socialist Cuba as a shining example of how government should work. Here’s a new idea. It’s just over 200 years old: Let's give free enterprise a fair shot.

In our country's haste to force more and more government into more and more aspects of our lives, there is an equal if not greater effort to force the church out. And we as Christians are complicit in that process. We have allowed it to happen. We have voted for politicians who promote anti-religious "interpretations" of the constitution, and the appointment of judges who will further that cause. We have slowly allowed ourselves to sink into the comfort of "letting the government do it." So that by now we have intellectually deflected our own responsibility for our fellow man upon the government. We should all ask ourselves, "when was the last time I put bread in the hands of the hungry? When was the last time I handed a coat to someone who needed one? And when was the last time I treated someone to a trip to the doctor or dentist?"

The United Methodist Church (and all Churches, Synagogs, and Mosques) and the UMW should be working to DIRECTLY provide aide to less fortunate people; not trying to get the government to do it for them. Helping people is my job; it's the churches' job; it's the private sector's job, not the government's job. Individuals, private charities and institutions like Global Hands of Healing and Habitat for Humanity, are FAR more efficient than government agencies. Therefore, as stewards of the charity ear-marked money that God puts in our own pockets, it is as equally, morally incumbent upon us to keep it OUT of the hands of the government, as it is to put it IN to the hands of the needy.


So, if the Methodist Church and the UMW are going to sully themselves by wandering into politics, (and it is my belief that they should not); they should take a good hard look at the motivations of the people and organizations they endorse; and how the influence they wield is bandied about. They should lobby for the enforcement of immigration laws, and a phased-out repeal of the minimum wage so that Texans can be free to work for the same wages as illegal immigrants. They should lobby for expanding the roles of faith-based programs, and private charities, and a decrease in government funded social programs.

When processes of socialism are invited into democracy; decisions are forced which diminish and erode democracy. Socialism comes at the expense of freedom. And that freedom, bought and paid with the lives of others, is not ours to sell.