Mennonite Weekly Review

Comments

• Mennonite officialdom has been ambivalent at best on the issue of abortion for years, and I don't take their assurances seriously at all. I have more confidence in the views of National Right to Life, which says this measure is a disaster to the pro-life cause, or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (why selectively quote an unofficial nuns' group in the editorial instead of those who actually have authority to speak for the Catholic Church in the U.S.?).

  Just to quote briefly from the bishops' conference, "The Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions (for example, through a new appropriation for services at Community Health Centers that bypasses the Hyde amendment), and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions."

  That's why the Catholic bishops, who really favor health reform, had to oppose this bill.

  - Dave (apr 2 at 5:46 p.m.)

• I agree with Dave.

  - Matt (apr 3 at 7:23 a.m.)

• At the point where Right to Life's website is full of rhetoric about rationing of care and euthanasia for the elderly, concepts which have been proven time and again false, which the right wing made up as scare tactics, there is little reason to trust Right to Life on any matter whatsoever.

  As for the Council of Bishops. To assume that these guys have the authority to speak for all Catholics demonstrates a clear naivete, particularly when the Women's Religious statements and those of other Catholic groups so clearly demonstrate a divide.

  Moreover, if you are voicing a concern about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you should bring a quotation directly from the legislation, which is published online, and not a quotation from another group says may or may not be in the bill. At over 1000 pages, it may be a long read, but given its great importance, it would seem worthwhile.

  Finally, I am not convinced that Representatives Stupak, Donnelly, and others who opposed the bill until the last minute for their concerns about abortion would have changed their votes without adequate concessions.

  - JPR (apr 3 at 9:35 a.m.)

• Maybe nobody has authority to speak for anyone anymore.
  

  My congressional district is upset and my Congressman will undoubtedly lose his seat. I surmise that his concession had nothing to do with his values or his understanding of his constituents' wishes. I believe that his concession was self-serving. Time will tell whether Barack Obama gives him the executive-branch appointment that my Congressman sacrificed his congressional career to get.

  - Matt (apr 3 at 11:49 a.m.)

• Do Dave and Matt refer to the latest statements of the Bishops and the final law as signed by Obama? Why are we so concerned about the Catholic viewpoint on either side?

  Read the official documents and then you will be qualified to judge.

  How can you tell many months ahead that your Congressman will lose his seat? Maybe it would be a good thing!

  Such prophets have many times been wrong.

  Let us go with facts, not predictions or quotes from people and organizations that we do not really know.

  I am amused (and frustrated) by what people say about what other people will do.

  Let us proclaim the Gospel. We still believe in Jesus, don't we? Or has He been lost in the vicious comments made by some on the health care issue?

  The tone of Paul Schrag's writing is excellent. Let us celebrate!

  - Les (apr 3 at 12:31 p.m.)

• Matt-It is a bold assumption to say that your representative was not representing his district. He may not have represented your opinion, or those of like mind against health care reform. However, there were many people who favor the changes outlined in the health care reform law. I told my representative that if he would vote against health care, he would lose my vote in the coming election. Can you honestly say you voted for your representative, or that his/her vote on health care had real influence on your future vote?
  

  It is an even more incredible accusation to say that your representative voted the way he or she did because of some potential executive branch appointment. Such an accusation demands solid, incontrovertible evidence to back it up. One ought not bear false witness.

  You want to debate health care, then let's do it, but drop the gimmickry. Let us discuss the role of government in regulating an insurance industry without a conscience. Let us discuss the many Americans without health insurance and what ought to be done. But lies about death panels, trumped up arguments about abortion, and unfounded accusations about corruption have no place.

  - JPR (apr 4 at 2:51 a.m.)

• It would seem that Mennonites are ready and willing to battle "Nationalism", patriotism and flag waving when in the context of songs, pledges or the military, but welcome the government into the care of our very person - our body, the temple to God. We put our full confidence in a government for what reason? Nobody will argue the need for reform on pre-existing conditions and cap limits - but did these reforms require us to head down the road to national healthcare (which some in our church seem to welcome with open arms)?

  While Mr. Schrag has a nice "tone" I'd love for him and others to explain how a nationalization of an industry reverses if we don't like the result - in other words, if citizens become unhappy how do we citizens get out of the bargain? As shown in history, it is ugly and often violent. What side will we be on then? A decade ago I remember church leaders welcoming the land "reforms" in Zimbabwe - now we lament! We must be careful and pay equal attention to both sides of compassion and reason and not assume that one approach has a monopoly on either.

  Our new-found confidence in government seems a bit odd at a minimum, and certainly at odds with our past. Have governments/rulers wrought havoc on our ancestors, or was it insurance companies? Do we as a church value our freedom or submit to the rulers? We can switch insurance companies- can we switch governments?
  

  Our faith has traditionally taught to "give unto Caesar" but placed firm lines between our payment and participation. Just as we are uncomfortable even associating ourselves with a military system that kills, how about a health-care system that may also cause death and harm through rationing and decreased economic vitality?

  Think of this puzzle: Is it better for 85% of the population to have great health-care and minimally take care of the rest, or for 100% to have care, but at a sub-par level? If we don't develop the drugs, the tech, the procedures, who will? I admit to not having the answer, but it sure sounds like the leaders of the church have made the decision for us already.........

  - BW (apr 7 at 10:02 a.m.)

• BW, I am puzzled by your writing. Do you work in nursing homes and assisted living homes? I do.

  I have seen rationing of health care. I have heard many residents complain that if they do not have insurance coverage, they do not get the care. Why? They can't pay. The Doctors don't see them as often as the law requires.

  What "85% have great health care"? Even a person with much money died today. Why? They did not send her to the hospital until "she had a dry hacking cough constantly for 3 or 4 days". That is a direct quote of her husband 2 days ago. Then she went directly to ICU and died there today. I wanted to visit her. "She has expired."

  The government is already into "the care of our very person". Hospitals and doctors have many government regulations. Vaccinations are required under certain conditions, etc.

  We are so arrogant to say that we have the best health care system that we don't mind lying about it. We do not have the best. The rest of the world knows that, if we don't. Universal health care in other countries is much cheaper than our system. Their average life span is longer than ours. Maybe that is due to our smoking, drinking, and over eating.

  I only heard remorse about the "land reform" in Zimbabwe from the beginning.
  

  Our government controls the military, the national guard, the postal system, the interstate highway system, the courts, the federal penitentiaries (a misnomer), the census, the number in Congress, patents, etc. I only began to name the areas. We don't stop to think of all that the government controls.

  Our foreparents always focused on "Render to God the things that belong to God". We have gotten off our focus by some people ignoring that and focusing only on rendering to Caesar, as you did. Both areas are in the same sentence. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" is not dividing sentences in two.

  All the money we have we have gotten from someone else. Could we give a little back to those who are suffering in institutions because of current government control and health care rationing? I know. You don't see it unless rationing happens in your family or you work with people that are affected by it. I see it 5 or 6 days of the week.

  Let us show the love and compassion of Jesus and the Good Samaritan.

  - Les (apr 7 at 7:41 p.m.)

• BW, I would point out that you are arguing against things that the present reform does not do. The bill is available online. Google it and read. Then argue about its actual contents.

  There is no "nationalization" of health care. Everything continues to be in private hands. There is not so much as a public option to compete with private insurance. Merely a ban on discrimination against the sick, against those with pre-existing conditions, against cap limits--issues you yourself say need address. Now if the government cannot establish laws to protect consumers, then we are all in trouble.

  There is no "rationing" of health care, or at least no more than presently exists, as Les has eloquently argued. In fact, the bill specifically mandates that rationing of health care is no longer a legal path to insurance company profitability.
  

  Please try arguing about aspects of the reform that actually exist for a change?

  I find this whole argument about Mennonites' inherent suspicion of government less than helpful. It has never been about suspicion of government. It has always been the placement of faith above government or citizenship. Mennonites have worked, and I would hope they would continue to work, with the government where its objectives match our own. Health care reform has been one such case.

  - JPR (apr 8 at 9:38 a.m.)

• When Hitler rose to power, one of the things he accomplished was to declare Jews to be sub-human, therefore under German law, he could legally proceed to kill six million. In the US, the Supreme Court made a similar decision by determining innocent babies in the womb are also sub-human, therefore it is not a crime if they are destroyed. We are not talking six million, but rather fifty million. And yet we read this healthcare legislation includes taxpayer funding for abortion. Mr. Schrag states this reform is a victory for principles of justice that Mennonites have affirmed in church statements and actively supported? On the abortion issue alone, this legislation should never have seen the light of day. Where is the justice for the unborn?

  It is increasingly obvious among the political and religious left, that too many are PLINOs (Pro Life In Name Only).

  According to my information, we start paying for this program in 2010 however most of the benefits don’t start until 2014. This was done to minimize the impact on the deficit by showing 10 years of revenue to fund 6 years of benefit cost. A political trick. In this legislation, healthcare quality will decrease and cost will increase.

  If this is such good legislation, why did not MC USA and MMA provide similar healthcare principles of justice for all individuals in MC USA? In other words, why was MC USA unwilling to extend similar healthcare provisions on an entitlement basis to its members?

  If this is such good legislation, why are so many states now suing the federal government under constitutional and financial mandate issues?
  

  If this is such good legislation, why did not members of Congress replace their healthcare plan with the one they mandated on the citizens?

  If this is such good legislation, why should taxpayers be required to supply Viagra to sex offenders?

  If this is such good legislation, why is government administration of student loans transferred from the commercial sector?

  If this is such good legislation, why were so many bribes using taxpayer funds needed to influence certain Democrat legislators?

  If this is such good legislation, why were so many under-the-table deals required with Democrats?

  If this is such good legislation, why was it done behind closed doors with Democrats only?

  If this is such good legislation, why was it so important to vote on it before the public had adequate time to read it?

  If this is such good legislation, why are thousands of IRS agents needed to enforce this?

  If this is such good legislation, why did a higher percentage of the public disapprove of this legislation than those who approved it as they learned of the details?

  Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi stated before the final vote, “We need to pass this bill so we can find out what is in it”. That has to be the quote of the decade.

  - Dale Welty (apr 9 at 12:26 a.m.)

• Dale, 1. There is no federal funding for abortions in this bill. Go on line and read it. Some states may provide funds, but not the federal government.

  1. You have made too many false assumptions and you cannot believe all that you read.

  2. You will get your answers only from the people involved. A trip to the decision makers to talk to them face to face might be helpful.

  3. You need reliable honest sources for information. You got biased information.

  - Les (apr 9 at 7:27 p.m.)

• Dale, 1. There is no federal funding for abortions in this bill. Go on line and read it. Some states may provide funds, but not the federal government.

  1. You have made too many false assumptions and you cannot believe all that you read.

  2. You will get your answers only from the people involved. A trip to the decision makers to talk to them face to face might be helpful.

  3. You need reliable honest sources for information. You got biased information.

  - Les (apr 9 at 7:28 p.m.)

• Bart Stupak and other likeminded PLINOs openly opposed the Health Care legislation that was under consideration to become law. They went on record as withholding their support. On this basis, Obama assured them he would sign and issue and Executive Order to eliminate the taxpayer abortion funding in the Bill. With that understanding, the legislation received the necessary votes and was sent to Obama for his signature. Obama proceeded to sign and issue the Executive Order as promised.

  Let’s be clear, the Executive Order has no authority over legislation that has been approved by Congress and signed into law. We have observed there were no loud and vigorous protests from the various organizations supporting abortion. Therefore we can conclude the Executive Order was issued for political purposes only and not worth the paper it was printed on.

  The people in Stupak’s district were not fooled which I believe led to his decision to retire and not seek reelection.

  - Dale Welty (apr 9 at 11:28 p.m.)

• Dale, let's be clear. If Obama's executive order holds no weight, then this would be the first time in American history. If executive orders did not matter, why the hubbub about Obama repealing an executive order by GW Bush against federal funding for family planning agencies abroad? If this executive order were irrelevant, why would National Organization for Women decry it as a setback for women's reproductive rights?
  

  Abortion has nothing to do with this health care reform package. Let's be clear. The lies about abortion came from the same sources as the lies about death panels, care rationing, and everything else. Because abortion is a hot button issue, this is the one that seems to have stuck.
  

  As for Stupak. All reports, except for those from the TEA Party, indicate that Stupak was not going to have much difficulty in November. In fact, there were quite a few in his district who favored reform.

  However, Stupak was getting a fairly constant stream of threats from people in opposition to the reforms. Domestic terrorism has been on the rise lately, and in many cases these threats have proven anything but hollow. Dale, you think this might be a reason behind him announcing his resignation?

  - JPR (apr 10 at 11:12 p.m.)

• I did not suggest some of the things JPR claims that I did. I did suggest that this bill heads us in a direction of nationalized healthcare - not that it has mandated it now. I also did not speak of current rationing, but as Mr. Welty indicated, there are 10 years of funding for 6 years of services - you do the math.

  I am simply making the point that we are being far too trusting in government on this issue, while on others we seem bent on inventing suspicion. Has anyone noted that we have 10 times the population of Canada with a significantly higher level of urban poverty and illegal immigration? How about the comparisons to European countries a quarter or a third our size? Why not do this at a state level instead of federally - have we asked (as a church) these questions or is the intent more important then the reality?

  Having read much of the bills provisions, I took note of the fact that fines for businesses who don't provide insurance as required total approx. $2000 per employee. If you couldn't provide insurance hefore would you now do so, or kick those employees to the government and take the fine? How about those paying more then $2000 per plan? What is there motivation? Fines for individuals total in the hundreds for many years - will they actually buy coverage? This is a trick, a political shell game. It is not R's or D's, this is common sense.

  We all have loving hearts - I don't see anyone questioning that. But as some point we reach a tipping point whereby our very source of revenues (our vibrant economy) is weakened and we can't afford what we currently have. As GM employees who got great benefits in the 70's and 80's know all too well- are they getting the same now? Is GM still strong and mighty? How does Detroit look these days. It can happen to all of us - These decisions have impact.

  We all will be worse off should we lack the resources to care for our families, our institutions, our churches etc. financially. The "poor will always be with us" ......I think we just have very different ideas about how to minimize that poverty. I argue that the poor will be much worse off if America suffers. As it was once said, the only equality in Communism is that everyone is equally poor. Perhaps dramatic, but we need to give it some thought.

  Tough decisions are sometimes needed to keep a business alive. Tough decisions are needed to keep countries alive. We are blind and unwilling to face those decisions.

  - BW (apr 12 at 1:15 p.m.)

• BW, I responded directly to what you wrote.

  "While Mr. Schrag has a nice "tone" I'd love for him and others to explain how a nationalization of an industry reverses if we don't like the result..." So this is not arguing that the health care reform is nationalization?

  "Just as we are uncomfortable even associating ourselves with a military system that kills, how about a health-care system that may also cause death and harm through rationing and decreased economic vitality?" So this is not a claim that the health care reform will ration health care? Les pointed out that there is already rationing in the status quo, and I agreed with him.
  

  Sorry, BW, but at the point that you cannot own what you yourself have written, how can you claim any credibility in discussing a health care reform law you have likely not read?
  

  Small businesses are exempted from fines but are offered tax incentives to insure their employees. Large companies are fined because they put a health care burden on the system by not insuring their employees. Funny you should mention GM, though. The unreformed health care system was one of the big factors that did them in.

  Again. Being Mennonite does not equate to suspicion of government. It means that in cases where faithfulness to God and to country conflict, we must go with God. In cases where the country does things that are in concordance with our faith, we can support those things. Put simply, military service potentially calls a person to participate killing. Health care reform potentially calls a person to participate in healing. Big difference.

  - JPR (apr 12 at 3:55 p.m.)

• Why is no one concerned about the costs of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we do not yet see the end of? 7 and 8 years. Over $1 trillion spent so far. We don't know what the full cost will be. There are yet many years of expenses for these wars. However you figure 10 or 6 in health care, at least there is a figure. There is no figure for the cost of the wars even in the next year, let alone 6 or 10 years! At least none that will be revenue neutral!! There was never an attempt to pay for these wars, just reduce taxes and increase military spending.

  All of us should have a huge guilty conscience who do not complain about the military spending, but complain about the cost of trying to make people more healthy and helping out in the health care costs of those who are less able to pay. I sure can't find anything in Jesus teachings that justifies the unconcern by may so-called Christians of these wars and the concern (?) of helping people rather than killing them. I agree with those who say the people who start wars should be the soldiers, not their surrogate young men and women.

  - Les (apr 12 at 8:38 p.m.)

• "Put simply, military service potentially calls a person to participate killing. Health care reform potentially calls a person to participate in healing. Big difference."

  Even you can see the subjective nature of this post JPR. The inverse thusly would read: "if you don't support this healthcare legislation you don't support healing". What kind of argument is that? Are there no alternatives, or is this the best we have? It seems as if this has gotten a bit personal - there is no attack here. But our religion is getting awfully dogmatic put in place by those who claim to reject dogmatism. We can look at things differently.

  The thrust of my argument was largely about payment and the effect on personal freedom - something Mennonites in particular ought to be very concerned about. The Mennonite outcry over the 'Patriot Act' was so immense I thought it must have been aimed at the church directly. Here is legislation effecting every single member that is a US citizen and we are supposed to simply agree that this means "healing" and progress.

  This legislation is not as Les argues "revenue neutral". The numbers simply don't add up - read some of David Walker's non-biased work. We cannot pay for what we already have let alone this addition - blame whomever you choose (how about Reagan, he's a good whipping post) - but good stewardship goes far beyond simply throwing money at causes that seem like "healing" but could very possibly do great amounts of harm. Wolves aren't always dressed as wolves.

  Put very simply - we ought to look with fresh eyes at some of these items. If everybody agreed on what Jesus' intentions in a modern context were would we even have disagreement? One side seems to carry that infallible mantle - if you don't agree with them you are against "healing", "social justice", "dialogue", or whatever the buzz word at that time might be. Has Anabaptist Mennonite faith become a basic agreement with 70's anti-war activism and modern democratic domestic agenda or is there more to our religion there? I argue much more.

  Believe me, I love dialogue, but not when it is entirely one sided. And JPR, to note, I do own what I have written. If this legislation is not headed toward national healthcare where is it headed? And as an aside, healthcare was only a small part of GM's undoing - choosing to ignore the broader point does not help your cause. I have not questioned your credibility - not sure why you feel the need to question mine.

  - BW (apr 13 at 11:16 a.m.)

• Regulation is not the same as nationalization. We have safety regulations telling meat packing plants what they can and cannot sell as food, setting standards for the automotive industry, requiring airlines to overhaul their planes at intervals. Factories must follow OSHA safety standards for their workers and pay a minimum wage. All of these industries pay fines for noncompliance if caught. Are they nationalized? The bulk of the reforms regulate health insurance companies by mandating that they give consumers what they pay for. How is this nationalization? BW does not clarify this, and just making the claim repeatedly does nothing.

  In choosing nationalization as the point of argument, BW chooses a loaded term that has had much more to do with paranoia than fact in recent use. Now, if we can agree that the current health care situation is problematic, what would BW propose we do?

  BW claims no personal attack, yet lectures those of us Mennonites who support health care reform about the hypocrisy of our stance toward the government. Then, he takes a portion of my response out of context. When I write, "Put simply, military service potentially calls a person to participate [in] killing. Health care reform potentially calls a person to participate in healing. Big difference," I do not imply that one either refuses military service or supports killing, that one either supports health care reform or opposes healing. The entirety of the paragraph was that it is quite mistaken to suggest that support or opposition to the government is the motivating factor behind our stance on an issue. It is the issue itself and how it meshes with our faith.

  This would tend to differentiate us from 70's anti-war activists and anarchists, as would the long Mennonite history of opposing involvement in military service--and of working with the government for change, for that matter--for theological reasons.
  

  Now to the financial argument. The thing is, the health care reform will produce a net savings over ten years, with further savings as it continues according to the Congressional Budget Office. Walker generally agrees with the CBO in this matter, although he argues that further reforms and tough financial decisions will be necessary. Not think too many are actually arguing this, but how does the government negotiate tough questions in our present state of affairs. Our political system cannot function if the minority is in a constant state of sour grapes. It is not like Democrats did not try for bipartisanship. However, at the point that Republicans were boasting about health care reform being Obama's Waterloo, at the point they were scaring their constituents with lies about impending socialism, the Republicans had severely limited their options. Who would vote for a Republican who compromised on what (s)he had labeled a "Stalinist plot"? Sadly, there is little reason to expect Republicans to step up anytime soon.
  

  - JPR (apr 13 at 2:40 p.m.)

• JPR-

  The govt. loves to regulate - using your metaphor to meat and insurance, they already over regulate the meat, now they are forcing us to buy it.

  There is a reason govt. involvement in commercial activity doesn't work, never has, and never will. The government can't build good cars just like it can't pack meat or make steel.........and it can't and shouldn't aim to run healthcare. Call it unfair, call it in-compassionate, call it whatever - its called the truth.

  You allege scare tactics but aim to defend the goal - I'm inclined to believe you are a supporter of nationalized healthcare truth be known. You seem incapable of seeing the other side, or acknowledging that Medicare, Medicaid and social security "healing" programs are currently unsustainable both before and particularly after this legislation.
  

  By the way, never turned this into an Republican or Democratic argument. You seem bent on doing so, but it clouds the argument Anabaptist values.

  - BW (apr 13 at 4:18 p.m.)

• BW--So why does the government regulate? For the heck of it, or to protect consumers and Americans? Where are your examples of regulations failing, or being set just because "the government loves to regulate?"

  Sorry, BW cannot argue about health care reform using partisan rhetoric and expect politics to be left out of it (your usage of "nationalization" and passing reference to communism are clear examples). You seem to want things both ways, where you can make accusations of others, but feign great offense when others point out that your arguments do not represent the facts. Really? This is your idea of dialogue?
  

  On another note, I am glad that you have finally launched into the political discussion outright, rather than trying to politicize Anabaptism.

  Truth be known, I would defend nationalization of health care. You outed me well, though I'm not sure I was trying to keep this a secret. Nationalized health care has worked for Canada, Britain, Germany, France, countless other developed countries. There is no good reason why it could not work here--unless our government is uniquely incompetent--except that it is a political impossibility. This reform, however, is no nationalization.

  I am aware that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security are in trouble. In part, this reform seeks to help alleviate some of the costs by preventing insurance companies from continually increasing rates, among other things. What is your solution to this dilemma, BW? What is your solution to the millions of Americans without health care coverage? So I ask you again, BW. If not the proposed reform then what?
  

  - JPR (apr 13 at 5:36 p.m.)

• BW, thanks for your comments. They reflect your deep knowledge on this subject compared to other comments I read. I look forward to reading more of your comments in the future. None are so blind as they who will not see.

  - Dale Welty (apr 14 at 10:00 a.m.)

• BW Thanks for your comments. They reflect a deep knowledge and understanding of the subject. I look forward to reading more of your comments in the future. None are so blind as they who will not see.

  - Dale Welty (apr 14 at 10:06 a.m.)

• I'll try to end with a few points:

  1) Regulations work & fail all the time, at the same time. They cause people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, at costs they wouldn't otherwise shoulder, and often fail to be reasonable and reflective. Your own example of OSHA is a glaring example.

  2) My point in "outing" your allegiance is simply to show that you are bringing a clear allegiance to the religious discussion. I see no instance that the bible indicates that government healthcare is a biblical command. I see no "right" to healthcare because it is dependent on funding - without jobs we will all fail to have healthcare. Are we then without "rights"? How about a "right" to a job, to food, to shelter? How behind are those?

  3) Anabaptist Mennonites ought be very concerned about government intrusion into any aspect of our lives. We have benefited from a benevolent government. If we grow dependent, voluntarily or forcefully, we become allegiant in different ways. This allegiance can cause us to do things we wouldn't otherwise i.e perhaps compromise our position on military service or lose our govt.healthcare or fund abortions through tax dollars - such an example is not a far mental stretch. We can always leave our health plan if we disagree with their stance religiously - we can start our own like MMA. In many peoples vision, that disappears. Are we reliant on God and ourselves, or does govt. become that god?

  4) I have never claimed to have one or any solutions. It seems, however, that we could make laws against pre-existing limitations or lifetime caps without all the attached mandates and regulations that do nothing to lower cost or provide better healthcare to those who already have it. We could leave this to the states, who are more comparable in size geographically and population to Canada, Britain or France. We could provide tort-reform to eliminate law-suits that drain the system and provide an injury lottery, perhaps use the punitive damages to fund healthcare for those who don't have it. We could have people buy insurance plans like car insurance and let them make the decision - more freedom and more responsibility.

  5) We simply need to stop mimicking politics at a church level. We accentuate or de-value certain things because of our politics, not our faith. Hence the only thing we really can agree on is non-violence and war resistance. This is dangerous to the church and dangerous to our interpretation of biblical teaching. How many of us would ever admit that the Catholic church could be more faithful to the bible (in certain areas) then Mennonites? The time has come.

  6) Thanks JPR for the spirited discussion. I would be curious to see if anything, aside from national healthcare, is an option for you here. Additionally, do you not see the damaging effects this could have on a people who still must live separate from the world spiritually?

  - BW (apr 14 at 11:32 a.m.)

• The health care debate goes on and on. It is a complex problem with no simple answers. However, pointing fingers at the various players involved is probably non-productive.

  I have been a health care provider for some 40 years, both as a rural family physician and as a member of the county health board. I entered the medical profession with a great deal of idealism coupled with a strong service-compassion focus. The medical profession has not disappointed me.
  

  Because of its complexity, government regulations are to be expected although many times they seem illogical. We used to treat a certain number of patients gratus, due to their income level, but several years ago the government outlawed this calling it "discrimination" Everyone must be charged equally. We used to give our outdated drugs to mission organizations to use in their medical out reaches but that now is not legal and punishable by a fine. Do I take out dated meds? Yes, I do as studies have shown that most drugs are stable up to 20 years.
  

  History is a great teacher. The debate of how much money the new health care bill will cost is probably not even worth debating. When Medicare began in 1965, the government gurus predicted the cost of that program in 1990 (25 years later) would be $12 billion. Guess what? In 1990 Medicare cost us $98 billion.
  

  Where in the Bible do I read that access to health care is a God-given right and that a society that does not provide it is immoral? Let's not forget that we are global citizens of a Kingdom whose members all have the same value in the sight of God. And that longevity may be a blessing, but not a right and as a Christian should not be our ultimate goal.

  - Daniel Miller (apr 14 at 11:01 p.m.)

• Good that we have arrived at some tangible things here. Sometimes it is necessary to get exercised in discussion in order to bring up the issues that matter.

  1) I agree that regulations are not perfect, and can sometimes even be costly to implement, as the OSHA regulations are. However, OSHA is hardly there for fun, and not all expenses can be considered useless. Where properly enforced, OSHA has protected workers from dangerous working conditions. If OSHA regulations had been followed in the Upper Big Branch Mine, 29 miners might not have lost their lives. Workers deserve as safe a working environment as possible.

  2) You are correct in saying that the Bible does not mandate government healthcare in so many words. However, it certainly does not rule it out. Christ is specific when He calls on believers to care for the sick, to care for the least of these, to give a second coat to someone with none, to sell all their possessions and divide the proceeds among those in need. So frequent are our duties to the less fortunate mentioned in both testaments that, were we to remove them, the Bible would be in shreds. Now, the question is, does this equate to a Biblical mandate for the government to do something about it? Perhaps not, but it certainly is not an admonition against it! Moreover, my tax dollars that go toward education, health care, homeless shelters, federal food programs are the expenditures I question least, because these are most compatible with my values as a Christian. --As a side note, you outed me as favoring nationalized healthcare. This is true. I would favor a single-payer system as it is best at controlling costs and maximizing benefits. However, as I will address later it is incorrect to say you have “[outed] my allegiance.”

  2a) You say you see no “right” to healthcare because it is dependent on funding. What is “right to life” then, if not dependent on funding and resources? There are numerous agencies to help ensure everyone, or at least as many as possible, have access to food and shelter. Healthcare, food, water, and shelter are all necessary conditions for life. Each of these conditions depends on the involvement of others from time to time.
  

  3) I can understand the arguments you make here about building dependencies and am aware of the implications. However, we are already dependents of health care companies, of creditors, of employers, of a variety of other things which may or may not be healthy. We must constantly re-evaluate our dependencies for this reason. However, the examples you cite in your argument about our dependency on government due to health care reform do not fit. The first example of military service is many giant steps from the health care reform that has been proposed. First, you have to assume that health care is no longer in private hands. Second, you have to assume that the federal government would reverse its stance after years of medicare, medicade, and social security to put ideological qualifiers on the entitlements. This would simply not pass constitutional muster, so third (not necessarily in that order), you would have to assume that the constitution would be nullified and rule of law brought to an end. With so many leaps, this becomes fantasy. Moreover, if the second and third steps would come into play, health care would be the least of our concerns.
  As for abortion funding. It is conceivable that if the government funds healthcare, some money could go toward abortion. However, the Hyde Amendment already makes this illegal. Obama’s executive order has strengthened this stance, much to the dismay of the National Organization for Women. At no point in any of this does the government become God. However, one might argue that the government is brought closer to its God-given role of maintaining justice and protecting life.

  4) The greatest problem with leaving it to the states is their significant differences in population and income. If we were to structure health care by states, then the coasts would be well covered, but the rest of the country would be hurting because the costal states have the population and the bulk of the money. Further, fifty sets of policies are inherently more difficult to negotiate than one federal policy. How would one expect to receive treatment if he should fall ill in another state? Some sort of tort reform would not be a bad idea, although it accounts for about 5% or less of medical expenses. Perhaps some needless procedures that primarily cover doctors from lawsuits could be eliminated. However, it would not be enough to make a significant impact on the overall cost of health care. As the reform stands, people have their choice of private insurers. There is plenty of freedom and responsibility in choosing a provider. However, the providers will no longer be able to charge more because of pre-existing conditions or age, nor will lifetime caps be allowed. As it stands, prices should not increase significantly, and all people are covered in some form or another. We will no longer be paying higher premiums because of uninsured emergency room patients.

  5) I agree we should stop mimicking politics at a church level, but this does not mean we should have to agree on everything. We should not be afraid to discuss our differing views on issues with fellow Mennonites. We should not be afraid to make them angry, since anger is natural byproduct of disagreements, but we should never lose sight of the person behind the argument. We must make sure that the other person is respected and can come back on amicable terms. We ought not reduce our arguments to the level that we are beating each other over the head about not being true Anabaptists. Anabaptists interpreted scripture to the best of their abilities and acted accordingly. I would hope that we do the same.

  - JPR (apr 14 at 11:10 p.m.)

• According to the time recorded of Daniel Miller at 11:01 and JPR timed at 11:10, it is clear that JPR is responding to BW, not Daniel. I find it difficult to follow BW. Maybe it is because I don't agree with some of the points of BW. For instance, "I see no instance that the bible indicates that government healthcare is a biblical command." Do you see an instance in the Bible for government control of anything--postal service, interstate system, CIA, FBI, etc. for many other controls? I do not find it helpful to reason from what the Bible does not say. There is too much for me to do of what the Bible tells us to do. I see two approaches to issues on this site. 1. Those who approach issues from the Biblical mandates and then make their opinions fit into this. 2. Those who have their ideas and then find Bible passages to "back them up". Jesus followed #1 many times. That is my goal also. Otherwise, I replace Jesus with my own opinion. "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
  

  I liked Daniel's last statement at 11:10. On a previous issue that I raised, I note that nobody took me up on my statement as to the cost of our two current wars. These wars have increased dramatically the health care costs--medical treatment of injured surviving soldiers for life--hospital building costs, equipment, nurses and doctor salaries. No one writes about all the medical costs of the wars we have had and will continue to have for many years. We are paying veterans medical costs from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And all the money we give to other countries to build up their military. It goes on and on! President Reagan promoted tax cuts. President Reagan and President Bush quadrupled the cumulative federal deficit. Check it out at your library if you don't believe the internet. On top of that increase and after President Clinton had surpluses, President Bush 43 doubled the deficit. He approved every federal expenditure of Congress until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, I think. Our huge debt goes to their credit. Obama had to spend more to bring us out of the crisis, but he has not begun in one year to cause the increase that we had in the 20 years of the above mentioned Presidents.
  How many of us can decrease our wages (or want to) and end up with more money? The wealthy give a lower percent of their income to charity than do the poorer people. I could go along with tax cuts if the wealthy would give all their tax cuts to charity. I am working part time in retirement. I give enough to charity that I do not pay federal or state income taxes (My state treats generously those over 70.) Some of my charity helps to pay for the expenses of those needing health care--in the States and overseas. I prefer to pay to give people quality of life rather than cause some of them to be injured for life. I much prefer that than for my taxes to be used to kill people. Somehow that seems more like the mind of Christ and what he left for us to do.

  - Les (apr 15 at 8:20 p.m.)

Comment on the article A step toward health care 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.