It's
election year and one of the major topics surrounding this year's election is
the notion towards a nationalized health-care system. To further narrow into the dept of this subject and its
importance, currently, it is estimated that nearly 50 million Americans cannot
afford health insurance (CNN).
Now, as Christians, how do we come to respond or neglect the reality that
terminally ill people everyday go without life-saving drugs to escape the realms
of foreclosure or bankruptcy?
This
is the question that John Blake has set out to answer in his recent article for
CNN, "Would Jesus Support Healthcare
Reform?". In the article,
he clearly speaks of the division between the greater Christian communities and
explains how our faith and understanding of our religion, can tackle this
national debate. For as in his
words, "Many cite Jesus, but come up with completely different
conclusions".
In
general, those that oppose Obamacare, i.e. a national health-care system, seem
to be focused in on the fear on one central idea, providing our government with
too much power. For instance, one
opposing practicing Lutheran, Tom Prichard, states, "Who do we trust- God
or the government?".
Prichard proceeds to expand on his beliefs, and makes the assertion that
churches and nonprofits should be the ones whom help cover these costs. Is this notion, however, realistic?
Can
churches and nonprofits afford to cover the expenses of the rapidly, increasing
costs of today's healthcare? If
so, how do we go about addressing the thousands of Americans who cannot even
get accepted through an insurance plan due to a pre-existing condition? Ultimately, this goes back to the
unfortunate reality that people are dying everyday because they cannot afford
their medical bills- we are not talking about a few thousand (there is a reason
they are willing to risk death), but cancer treatments and other forms of
disease containment that can easily allow hospital bills to climb into
six-figures sums. Therefore, it is
hard to believe that this enormous burden would be something that the churches
and community charity could compensate for alone.
Whether,
Prichard and others with his viewpoint want to admit it, sooner, rather than
later, the government will have no choice but to step in and regulate the
health-care industries, holding large pharmaceutical companies reliable for
their large profit margins. What I cannot seem to fathom, however, is how the
Christian community can be so widely torn on an issue that goes directly
towards its basic foundation of belief.
Now,
nowhere in the Bible does it come to talk of terms such as, laissez-faire, or a
command driven economy, so the real question is, indeed, how can we know what
Jesus would do? Well... It's
actually quite simple, read the nearly 300-some parables in the Bible for which
the verses speak of social justice and helping the poor. Shall we drive into some of the verses,
because if Jesus was running for President, I don't think anyone would argue
that Jesus would say, "Screw the poor, lower our national debt".
More
to the point, Jesus would advocate for a movement towards alleviating suffering
in others, after all, this is the basis of Christian social ethics. In fact, the first principle of social
ethics explicitly deals with life and enriching it throughout the human
lifetime. This principle
explicitly assumes that all humans have meaning, including the poor, and the
right to the second principle of Christian social ethics, which is justice.
Justice,
or simply put, getting what one deserves, includes having an "option"
for the poor. Meaning that
whatever we do as human beings, as Christians we must account for the
poor. So I am asking for your help
to further my understanding as to why then so many Christians are against
providing this "option" for the poor, pertaining to the implementation
of a national health-care system?
-- Interested in viewing the link?
This post brings up a very interesting point. Health care has always been a a big issue in society and bringing religion into the equation makes it much more fun to deal with. If we were to create an option of a healthcare reform for the lower class, it would bring many problems to hospitals everywhere and the middle class would suffer, because they would end up paying for the poor's healthcare. Throwing religion into there would put a twist on the free healthcare. I believe that it would require a tribute from the receiver back to the origin of the healthcare provider to make an equality to make it worth it to the providers to do it for free. Otherwise, although it would be ethical to help them, I'm positive providers won't be as hospitable as to be expected.
ReplyDeleteHere's a metaphorical phrase: "you get what you pay for". If you're going in to get free medical coverage, it most likely will not be as reliable as people who pay for their own medical coverage. That may not be true in call cases but it seems probable, with how times as they are now.
This was a very thought-provoking post. The concept of universal health care here in America has long been debated. We constantly ask such questions as "can we afford it?" and "is it right to make health care mandatory?" To me, the second question is the central one to the entire argument, and the primary problem with Obama's healthcare law. While I support the notion of making health care more accessible for those who can't afford it, I have a few issues with it. The first is what I just stated. It is not within this country's constitutional boundaries to force people to purchase something. Even if it is healthcare, it's equitable to forcing someone to purchase a car or a laptop. My second issue is the financing of this legislation. This is a country grossly in debt, and throwing billions of dollars more into this law would do a disservice to the nation as a whole. It would be great to help the poor out, but the money simply isn't there. The more we continue to spend, the less of a future this country is going to have because it will take more time and effort to pay off the debts. I guess the central point that I'm driving at is that we can help the poor now, but then everyone loses in the long-run. The money isn't there.
ReplyDeleteYou can really look at this from two perspectives. The first is the political and the second is the religious. The religious side of the argument is exactly what you stated in your analysis. It is a catholic social teaching to help the poor, and likewise we would certainly see Jesus encouraging us to help the poor as well. So why do we see some Christians opposing this law? I attribute it to the modernization of society. We have grown accustomed to rational thinking and explanations. As this continues, many of us lose sight of the core beliefs of our religions. Heck, I was just reading an article about how Stephen Hawking says that the universe could have created itself from nothing. So the answer to your last question is that I think people have lost sight of their beliefs. A true Christian will argue for the law to be enacted, while others will likely argue against it. This is because they think rationally. How will this affect the future? Do we have the money? They ask these questions instead of "is it the right thing to do?"
It's not the government's job to express christian views. That's my first thought. Church and state NEED to be separate, like it is in nearly every other civilized country.
ReplyDeleteSecond, when you look at countries like Canada, who have had health care for everyone for a while now, and ask: "Can we afford it?" Well, yes we can.
Think about this situation: A man gets sick and has to be home from work. His work entails a small town business that's on the brink of failing and his sickness is the straw that broke the camel's back and his business is now bankrupt. The bank that he lent from is now out $200,000. The bank however, needs that money to give to the government to pay the government back for some bonds. The bank then has to go after the man's family, who is now poorer than ever before, and takes their home and their cars to cover the loss. The bank is now only $80,000 short, but can't get any more money from the man's family.
Now, if the government had paid $4,000 a year for that man's health insurance, he could have gone back to work quicker and his business would have been saved. The bank would have gotten its money on time, with a bit of interest even, and the government would have become $50,000 richer.
So, our country has the money. And by having everyone pay a little bit for everyone to have health insurance, more people can get to work quicker and help the country grow.
As Christians, however, we can look at it like this. As Christians, we are against the government paying for abortion because we think it voids the world of an important life. Then, shouldn't we as Christians think that we should have the government pay for health insurance because if we don't, it would also potentially void the world of an important life?