The Tweet that provoked:
Healthcare reform is all about fairness, it is fundamentally unfair for people to die early (even in the womb) because they lack coverage
My argument was not explicit: it’s unfair…that more than 50 million people experience this suffering when America spends so much on my homeownership tax deduction, on roads, on two wars…etc.
People responded with several “Christian” arguments – it’s a fallen world, grace is unfair etc. This raised a significant issue: just because the world is broken doesn’t mean Christians should accept injustice. In the Bible, the prophets – and Jesus himself – consistently call out injustice. They even argued that rulers (read: governments) needed to address them. Many great Christians (activist theologians) did not accept injustice, some at great personal cost (eg Dietrich Bonhoeffer).
We cannot be calloused to the urgency and injustice of this issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, it is injust, and I would like to see it fixed. But not by the govt.
ReplyDeleteI believe the church should be stepping up into its Acts 2 role and providing for those in it, and the community its involved in. We've seen in NOLA how people motivated by things other then money are much more successful. The church should step up and care for those it comes in contact with, not the govt.
I can understand the urgency put on health care. I think it sad seeing people die unnecessarily. To tell the truth I didn’t think it was a big deal until recently. Seeing that there are many without health care that desperately want it I’m willing to say it’s a pressing issue that needs to be improved.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my disagreement lies not in the ends but in the means. In the discussion of fairness I saw people were angered by the government’s means. No matter how pressing not all the means we use to get us to where we need to be can be justified by this issue. It may not be fair that 50 million people may not have healthcare but it’s equally unfair to forcefully take from the remaining 250 million people and give to those 50 million. (140words :))
I think that while the government may be in the best position to implement the changes necessary, I don't like that the voice of "the people" (as in, "of the people, by the people, for the people") is lost in the discussion. Special interests (doctors associations, insurance lobbies, Planned Parenthood, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) have the influence and money to drive their priorities. What results is a bloated bill (both in terms of cost and regulation) that is different from the original intent - I believe the original House bill was estimated at around $800B and is now estimated at over $1T.
ReplyDeleteI do like that this bill, unlike previous legislation forced lawmakers to listen to their constituents, whether through town halls or letter writing campaigns. The mobilization of "the people" has reinvigorated interest in not only the legislative process, but in people's involvement with that process.
I feel that we are on a slippery slope here, of course people should have access to healthcare, but what else is the obligation of the government to provide (and require, in the case of those who choose not to have health coverage and now will be required)? The government has already spent an average of $24K per vehicle bought through cash for clunkers and I've read that the first time homebuyer tax credit cost $43K* per home sold. The major winners each initiative is the insurance companies (an influx of people being required to purchase policies, many on the government's dime), the realtors and home builders, and the automakers (many of which are not based in the US and do not contribute heavily to US GDP).
Sorry - way longer than 140 words!
*note on the numbers - the $43K/each is calculated using the cost of the program divided by the number of additional homes purchased that wouldn't have been purchased if the program wasn't in place. The Cash for Clunkers was calculated using the same logic.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0924_tax_credit_gayer.aspx
Victor, I'm glad you see the issue, but I don't think we should be upset by having to "forcefully" give to others (those of us who are blessed to have health insurance.) I feel as though it should be our great joy to have our financial blessings bless others. None of it is really ours in the first place.
ReplyDeleteJamey, how do you suggest the church step up and take the lead? We're already so divided on so many issues. God raised up our gov't for a reason. Ideally the church would be the ones taking the initiative. Health care reform is a pressing matter. I think the church can take the lead by praying for wisdom for the gov't, writing their Senators and elected officials, thinking and advocating for what is realistically the best situation for those this bill will help the most, etc. We can't be passive about it, that's for sure. We should be the ones crying out the loudest for a change on behalf of those who need it most.
ReplyDeleteAside: so many other countries already have universal health care. Why are we all in a tizzy about it?
distilling comments thus far: (1) let the church provide healthcare (I'm with Ashleigh...that's a tough sell); (2) forcing 250 mil to pay for 50 mil healthcare is not the solution (not sure on the logic - like a bikerider saying I don't need roads, don't let me tax dollars pay for them, there are some common goods all of our tax dollars pay for AND I still don't see an alternative solution); (3) the people get muscled out of this (Agreed, to an extent. Though, Obama campaigned clearly on this issue, the people elected him. AND an imperfect system doesn't justify doing nothing); (4) why are we so het up, all the other countries have one (this is the crux...more to come on the question of rational countries with universal healthcare)
ReplyDeleteas for my argument, it's not that the church should provide health care, which is a tough sell, but they should help those in need. i.e. When someone in the church, or out of the church even, needs to pay medical bills (or any other bills for that matter in my opinion) and has a legit need (like they aren't blowing on their money on drugs or gambling) the church should be able to assist them in that. If they have an addiction the church should also help them over come that, with the power of the gospel to assist them in a better life from then on.
ReplyDeleteI think of things like faith run hospitals, or st. jude's, which doesn't take govt money and is funded from doctors donating time and private donors as the way to fix our health care. Health care provided by your employer, plus faith based, or cause specific, hospitals and doctors are the way to go in my opinion.
1) I don't think that it is necessarily the responsibility of the church to make sure that everyone gets healthcare as it is their responsibility to take care of their people. 2)Forcing 250 mil to pay for 50 mil's healthcare is an issue. You can't argue that just because I don't need a road (as a bicycler) doesn't mean I shouldn't pay for it. That road will make sure that groceries get to Walmart so that I can purchase them...amongst many other purposes. Healthcare for someone else effects me in no such way (that I can think of). So that logic is broken. 3)Still trying to understand what Erica said :-) 4)Just because every other country has hc option does not necessarily mean we should. Especially considering what hc has done to other countries.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whether to take care of people, as I believe we all see the injustice. The issue is HOW. I don't know enough about the economy or govt to offer a solution, as any solution I could offer would be ripped to pieces. I do believe, however, that any problem that we wish to solve in this country, needs to be dealt with on the lowest level, that is amongst the people. The government will never be able to change certain things.
More to come, as I am still processing...
i'm coming back to this on Wednesday when I have time to respond to new comments!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Ashy D that the government shouldn’t run health care. It’d be one thing if they started pooling money for those that needed like a charity. But to “fix” what works for 250,000,000 people? How exactly will it do that? The government has anything but a good track record of using money wisely, welfare is a good example. 40 years ago every dollar given to welfare only 70 cents went to the person in need. If a charity did that now they would lose supporters quickly. Some report as low as 5 cents on the dollar for administration costs. It gets worse. 13 years ago welfare recipients received 30 cents on the dollar given for them. 70% of the money was lost in “administrative” costs. I don’t know about you but that sounds like sinful stewardship to me.
ReplyDelete