Aug. 17, 2009 issue
Health care reform with justice
Of all the reasons to reform the U.S. health care system, justice tops the list. It is unfair that a basic human right — full access to adequate health care — belongs to the rich and some of the employed, while others go without.
Defining health care reform as righting an injustice helps clarify a Christian stance on this complex issue. Affordable options for lower-income households should be as important as controlling costs for the middle class. The disparity between the quality of care for rich and poor gives strong motivation to overhaul the system.
Mennonite Church USA delegates took a justice-centered approach in a health care access resolution this summer in Columbus, Ohio. They called for “legislation that would extend access to health care to all Americans, particularly the poor and disadvantaged.”
The resolution does not endorse specific legislation. But it urges that access for all, particularly the poor, be an essential part of any reform plan. “The scriptural test of a just nation is how it treats its weakest members,” the resolution states.
A 2007 MC USA document on “Health Care Policy Principles” says it is immoral and intolerable that 46 million Americans — many of them African-Americans, Hispanics and the working poor — are uninsured. “As a result, they lack ready access to health care, which causes unnecessary deaths, increases morbidity among the acutely and chronically ill and results in higher costs,” the document states.
A system with such a huge hole is dysfunctional. Yet the health care reform debate — obsessed with fears about “socialized medicine” and “rationing” — leaves the impression that most Americans just don’t care about the 46 million uninsured.
Objections to reform often ignore the current system’s considerable flaws. Americans spend vastly more than any other country on medical care. Americans annually spend an average of $6,714 per person on health care, compared to $2,760 in the United Kingdom and $3,678 in Canada. Insurance premiums have almost doubled in the past seven years.
Yet we’re not buying better health. A 2000 World Health Organization study ranked the U.S. health system 37th overall. The United States ranks 50th in life expectancy. It lags behind 43 nations with lower rates of infant mortality. It finished last out of 19 industrialized nations in a study that looked at avoidance of preventable deaths from a wide range of illnesses.
The United States is the only major industrialized nation without universal health coverage. We need, as the MC USA resolution states, a system “in which risks, cost and responsibility are shared by all.”
One important part of such a system would be an individual mandate requiring every citizen to have insurance. Those who can’t afford it would get discounts. A mandate would also help control costs, because a large number of young, healthy peo-ple who currently go without insurance would start paying premiums. In Massachusetts, which three years ago began requiring everyone to be insured, less than 3 percent of residents now lack health insurance, compared with 16 percent nationwide.
A second desirable component of reform is a government-sponsored insurance program. This public option would be available to all, similar to the way Medicare is an option for those over 65. The American Academy of Family Physicians has said a public option would “make health care more affordable for patients and foster greater competition in the insurance market.”
Amid the national debate, MC USA needs to get its own house in order. The time of decision is here for the denomination’s Corinthian Plan, which will provide health insurance for all pastors if it gets enough support from congregations by the enrollment deadline of Oct. 1. A delegate at Columbus was right when he said it would be an embarrassment if the Corinthian Plan failed after the health care access resolution passed.
The Corinthian Plan’s fate will depend on the willingness of congregations with greater financial means to provide mutual aid to those with less. It’s a matter of justice. Christians should understand the importance of that, in the church and the public square.
Comments
-
Health care is not a RIGHT! As humans the only rights and privileges we are able to claim are granted to us by Jesus Christ - forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternity in Heaven, and until then the grace and peace He gives,and guidance from the Holy Spirit as we live daily! We as Christians have the Biblical mandate to care for the widows, orphans and the poor. But neither the poor, nor those of us more fortunate, have the "right" to basic health care.
-
I think Paul Schrag has brought out many important points. I see no weak points in his editorial.
What does "to have a right" mean? Do all children have a right to public education? Long ago we decided that children, rich and poor, are entitled to an education. In fact the law says they have to go to school--public, private, home, etc. It is for the health of our nation. I long for the same attitude to basic health care. It is for the health of our nation. Mr Schrg has brought out many of our failings in regard to the accomplishments of other nations. People in other countries who have universal health care are more content than USA citizens. The discontent we have has been shown in the town hall meetings. Many other countries do not have the huge gap between the rich and poor.
Spiritually and biblically, I do not believe I have a right to forgiveness, nor to heaven. It is by grace that I am saved. The same grace will get me in heaven, nothing else.
We are "reckoned" and "counted" by God to be righteous. I have a right to go to hell because of my sin. Have I misread the Bible?
Earthly speaking, I believe we have a right to freedom and to basic health care. To say other wise divides us into the "haves" and the "have nots".
-
Cathy has stated it very well. To those who understand what she has written, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not understand it, no explanation is possible.
Did Jesus ever go to the Roman government requesting government funded healthcare for all? Did Jesus ever announce that on a certain day, He would be avaiable at a certain city to take care of all healthcare needs? Was Jesus immoral to not address those needs of the people?
What we are seeing today is not the government's concern about healthcare but rather an opportunity, with the aid of deception, to seize control of private enterprise just as was done to the auto makers.
-
Wow. Just... Wow... Where to begin? You talk about the "aid of deception," but everything you write here is riddled with it.
First of all, if we are to limit our rights to those granted by Jesus, we would be at precisely... nil. What Jesus offers is a gift--hardly a right--and the promise that even if one suffers on earth for his or her faith in Him and the One who sent Him, heaven will offer a paradise beyond the reach of the world and its tyrants.
What Jesus offers is a reminder of our responsibility responsibility--hardly our right, but a privilege for those who are able--to follow His commandments, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and care for the poor. To deny this is to deny all of Jesus' actions from his birth to his death, which is a time that some seem to dismiss as irrelevant anyhow for its inconvenience.
In short, we are not left with any rights at all if we simply look to "those granted by Jesus." Nevertheless, we claim a rights to free speech, free press, freedom of religion, to bear arms (where did Jesus EVER bear arms?), and a whole host of rights that were never "granted by Jesus." That argument is wholly unconvincing.
No, Jesus never went to the Roman government to request healthcare. But was there healthcare in the Roman empire worth having? Last I checked, what we know today as healthcare has developed only in the past century and a half. Then again, Jesus did cure the lame, cure the lepers, give the blind vision, and so on wherever he went.
Finally, the government has not "done [this] to the auto makers. GM and Chrysler have been bleeding revenue for years. They are bankrupt because of bad decisions, because of management's disconnect from the workers, because of a refusal to modernize and work toward fuel efficiency, and because of a healthcare system that is currently eating better than 50% of all new cars and trucks before we even get to wages. GM and Chrysler did this to themselves. However, with the jobs of millions of workers in the balance, the government saw it as necessary to intervene, rather than watch the economic fallout destroy our economy completely.
As for healthcare reform. Once again, this is not about the government trying to overleap its bounds. It is about the government trying to catch up to the rest of the world. Our healthcare situation is no longer tenable. The US is no longer a competitive market for production because healthcare premiums have gotten out of hand. Toyota and Honda are opening more new factories in Canada than in the US, for example, because of the different healthcare system there.
More importantly, the healthcare industry has proven itself incompetant at best, criminal at worst, in living up to its insurance obligations. Major illness has been grounds for the insurance company to drop coverage, regardless of length of membership in its plan. Good luck trying to get coverage elsewhere with that pre-existing condition. Effectively, current PRIVATE insurance companies function as the so-called "death panel," precisely for this reason.
The government is not attempting to "seize control," but to ensure that private enterprise is, in fact, meeting its obligations. The most the government will do, aside from making it more difficult to drop coverage in the event of illness and eliminating "pre-existing conditions" as an excuse, is to provide a public option, more as an effort to keep the private insurance companies honest through competition.
-
Please forgive the several typos in the above comment. I was in a hurry to catch a train.
-
Well said, Jim. There are many issues involved. It is good to look at them.
Thank you, Dale, for giving a complement to Cathy, although you still promote your digs at other people--rather inaccurately, I would say.
You missed Cathy's strongest point: "We as Christians have the Biblical mandate to care for the widows, orphans, and the poor." I am glad that you are concerned about them. Who has the greatest need for universal health care? The rich or the poor? The widow who may be unemployed, or only able to work part time and therefore does not have benefits?
And should we not add Jesus' summary of the two greatest commandments? How do they enter in here? If we love with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength, what else do we have time to spend on? Jesus performed miracles to heal the sick. We are not doing that. Do we have all his miracles recorded? Do we have all his concerns recorded? He fed thousands. To build each other up, we need to consider Jesus whole ministry. Let God judge who I am and what I do. But I am glad that He has called me to minister to the sick and elderly and I hear from them daily how they do not get the care that Christ would give or how Christ desires them to be cared for.
Instead of defending the current system that is strongly favoring the insurance industry and the for profit industry, lets use this column to suggest how we can improve or change the current system. Whenever I bring it up with those who give me medical care, or my insurance agent, they say, "Yes, there is no doubt that the current system is broken."
I urge the passage of the Health Insurance Reform bill when it is completed. It is not yet complete. Then in subsequent years we can work to improve it. Congress changes laws all the time.
To God be the glory!
-
It looks like we can stop beating up on each other. As of today, it appears the "public health insurance option" is dead.
-
After writing the above note, I think the Lord revealed to me that there is no Biblical reason for our "for profit" health care/insurance program. Jesus healed without charging anyone. He was criticized for healing on the Sabbath. The Good Samaritan paid for health care for someone else out of his own pocket. Many opposed to a change are because they would lose money. Many for a change are because it would help many others. Which is the Jesus way?
There is so much teaching in the Bible for us to follow that I'm not sure how helpful it is to refer to what the Bible does not speak to. We could carry that to the extent of not having democracy, a republic, automobiles, electing officials, especially in the church, etc.
Peace to all.
-
Les, since you are a student of the Bible and history, perhaps you could share with me and other MWR online readers the date when Healthcare became a 'basic human right'. I don't find it in the Bible or in the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution which are also known as the Bill Of Rights?
To Jim, when I complimented Cathy on her statement, my complimentary comments covered her entire statement. Perhaps I assumed too much and in the future need to go in specific detail, line by line so I cover all the bases.
While I have your ear, I will ask you the same question I addressed to Les regarding when Healthcare, became a 'basic human right'
-
Rights vs. gifts, responsibility and freedom (there's a big one), now even dates, and . . . .!? One writer at least mentioned love. I'd like to include good old common sense. What common sense (basic right?)does a human baby have to any necessary help if at all available the moment it is born? Maybe someone wants to debate about the right to at least a manger and to swaddling clothes? What if some medical help is also needed and available?
-
Dale, I am sure should you read my lengthy response above, you will find that I clearly refuted all of your and cathy's statements. Nevertheless, I thank you for once again putting forth the accusation of mischaracterizing your statements. Seems to happen a great deal, particularly as your argument seems to weaken and look bad.
Now, a recap of "when healthcare became a basic human right."
Jesus healed the sick, the lame, the blind. Apparently he was emphasizing a right to human dignity and the fundamental obligation to look after those in need.
The first ten amendments do not say anything about healthcare. The right to life, however, is implied, even though it is not specifically outlined therein. The Declaration of Independence--not the constitution, but certainly a founding document--specifically outlines the equality of all, which guarantees rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So we have a right to life. Good healthcare is a fundamental necessity to preserving life. Ergo, healthcare is, and ought be seen as nothing less than a fundamental right.
Now, I have a few questions. Are you, Dale, willing to tell someone they can no longer live because they do not have insurance or their case has become too expensive? Are you, Dale, willing to tell someone that their right to life is a sole function of their income and/or benefits? That is PRECISELY what you do in declaring healthcare a non-right.
You may call this a mischaracterization, but before you do, you would do well to consider the implications of what you say. Concretely, this is EXACTLY the situation that the current situation produces. How many life-saving surgeries have been delayed until too late because of bickering with insurance? People are not treated with dignity, and their right to life is denied.
-
Jim, Dale can't answer questions. Evidently he does not have any answers. He can only ask questions.
-
As before I do not oppose the Corintian Plan , per se. I find it hard to justify the health care resolution statement and then say that the Corinthian Plan with it's limitation to leadership reflects justice at it's core since it is not at all inclusive nor does it start at the place of the "least of these" but rather a very selective position.
Comment on the article Health care reform with justice
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
