RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Three Moral Issues of Health Care

by Jim Wallis 07-02-2009

Good health is the will of God for each and every one of his children.  Death, disease, and pain did not exist in the Garden, and Revelation tells of a “new heaven and new earth,” where once again they will not exist.  We live in a fallen world where injury and sickness are a fact of life.  In fact International Classification of Disease now identifies 68,000 distinct diagnoses.  Every year in our country there are about 119 million ER visits, up to 902 million doctor’s office visits, and about 3.5 billion prescriptions filled.

Perfect health will never be achieved and physical death on this earth will never be overcome, but the scriptures paint a clear picture that this was God’s intent from the beginning and will be the goal once again in the end.  This means that on a personal, national, and global level the physical well-being of all God’s children is close to God’s heart and should be close to ours as well.

There is not a religious mandate or God-ordained system of health care or insurance.  No amount of biblical exegesis or study will lead you to a policy conclusion on health care savings accounts, personal versus employer provided insurance, single payer public systems, or private insurance plans.  Luke might have been a physician, but he still never commented on whether or not computerizing medical records should be a national priority.

These policy questions are still of vital importance and will be debated and discussed in the coming months at the White House, in Congress, in the press, and I hope in our churches.  With an issue like health, deeply personal but of great public concern, I believe that the faith community has a unique and important role to play.  That is, to define and raise the moral issues that lay just beneath the policy debate.  There will be a lot of heat, maybe even a few fires, over the weeds of the policy, and the faith community has the opportunity to remind our political and national leaders about why these issues are so important — why they speak to our values.

There are, I believe, three fundamental moral issues that the faith community can focus on and call our political leaders back to, lest they forget.  They are: the truth, full access, and cost.

The Truth

For decades now, the physical health and well-being of our country has been a proxy battle for partisan politics.  When Truman tried to pass a national health insurance plan, the American Medical Association spent $200 million (in today’s dollars) and was accused of violating ethics rules by having doctors lobby their patients to oppose the legislation.  In the 1970’s when Nixon tried to pass a national health insurance plan, strikingly similar to what many democrats are proposing today, the plan was defeated by liberal democrats and unions who thought that they would be able to pass something themselves after the mid-term elections and claim political credit for the plan.  In the 1990’s the “Harry and Louise” ads misrepresented the Clinton health care plan but was successful enough PR to shut down that movement for reform.

Already, industry interests and partisan fighting are threatening the opportunity for a public dialogue about what is best for our health care system.  As a resource for congregations, small groups, and individuals, Sojourners has worked with its partners to publish a Health Care tool kit [click here to download] to help frame and guide this necessary debate.  This guide gives an overview of the biblical foundations of this issue and frequently asked questions about it.  What we need is an honest and fair debate with good information, not sabotage of reform with half-truths and misinformation.

Full Access

The second fundamental value question is that of quality and affordable full access to health care.  About 46 million people in our country today are uninsured and many more find themselves without adequate coverage for their medical needs.  Many of them are working families who live in fear of getting sick or injured.  Some delay seeking medical attention at the risk of their own health and increasing cost later on, or use emergency room services instead of primary care physicians.  An estimated 18,000 people a year die unnecessarily, many from low-income families, because they lack basic health insurance.  As a father, I know how important the health, wholeness, and well-being of my family is to me and is to every parent.  Seeing your child sick is a horrible feeling; seeing your child sick and not having the resources to do something about it is a societal sin.

Cost

The third issue is cost.  An estimated 60 percent of bankruptcies this year will be due to medical bills. Seventy-five percentof those declaring bankruptcy as a result of medical bills have health insurance.  The costs of medical care stem from varied sources.  Some of these costs come from malpractice lawsuits, some from insurance companies with high overhead and entire divisions of employees hired to find ways to deny benefits.  Someone who thought they were insured could find out that their benefits were terminated retroactively because the insurer decided that there was a pre-existing condition.  In the end, some are paying too much for care and others are making too much from these present arrangements.

There is a lot of money, to say the least, wrapped up in health care.  The faith community needs lift up the concerns of those who have no lobbyists on Capitol Hill or PR firms with slick advertising campaigns.

These are pressing issues for our country, lives are at stake, and it is a debate we must have and take seriously.  For the month of July, we will be taking this discussion to our blog and having some of our regular writers and guests give their opinions and perspectives.

There are a myriad of special interests groups who will be promoting their own self-interests during this process.  The faith community has the opportunity to step in and speak for the interests of the common good and those who would not otherwise have a voice.  I am sure that every one of the 18,000 preventable deaths that will happen this year from a lack of basic health insurance breaks the heart of God.  And, it should break ours too, because healing is at the very heart of the Christian vocation.

To learn more about health-care reform, click here to visit Sojourners’ Health-Care Resources Web page.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • http://godslegacytrust.blogspot.com



    This is the solution to our health care crisis. We all ultimately turn to God during times of crisis. This will create a propagating, everlasting, taxable income stream that will create jobs, pay for socialized health care and rebuild social security.
  • staffingpowers
    Hii im jack i appreciate your answer. thanks.
  • pgafinch
    Arrived at this discussion late but will make comments anyway.

    I am 62 and I have been paying for my future medicare benefits since I was 16. The majority of American people do not expect something for nothing even though there are groups that would like you to believe that everyone does except them.

    We should have a single payer system that everyone pays into through payroll deductions. It could be a "medicare" for all system but the pool of people in the group plan would be 340 million people. This would save companies already providing health care benefits to employees. If companies wanted to offer a health care benefit to employees they could increase pay to offset health care plan deductions from employees payroll.

    For individuals that need assistance in paying into health care plan then that is where government steps in to assist (this is current medicaid system). If everyone pays into system the increase in taxes should be reduced. The government can work with health care industry to set and control prices. No one wants doctors and health care professionals to suffer financially and health care professionals should not want Americans to suffer financially either. Nor should any American not do their part to make sure everyone has access to health care including primary care.

    This has become a moral issue because it has become a "class" issue. The Bible does not address health care as a moral issue but it does speak to the "have vs have-nots" issues in more than one place.
  • Another_Insight
    So Jim Wallis, you are asking people of faith to get behind a health plan that seeks to use our taxes to fund Abortions?? That is in Obama's health plan. So instead of 1.2 million babies aborted, we are looking at the potential of a health tax so that another 500,000 or so babies will end up aborted. How is funding the destruction of the weakest among us, in any shape, or measure, Godly??? Why aren't you, as a member of Obama's "Faith Advisors" publicly opposing this?

    All people of Faith should actively be opposing "ObamaCare" unless this travesty is addressed, not promoting it.
  • sonicmoon
    That's why one of the components of real reform should be to allow interstate purchasing of insurance. More competition results in better pricing along with the other measures to lower costs and close the gap on coverage.
  • alko1001
    Seems to me that God pretty much uses force and intimidation Himself (at
    least according to many who profess to "know Him" [and what He wants of
    us])... And why do those who use God to condemn Government forget to mention
    the "render unto Caesar" thing, or the "brother's keeper" thing, or the
    taking care of "the least of us" thing-- all of which can be handled quite
    nicely by Government... The same conservative Christians who oppose and denounce
    "big [interfering] government" and other-religion theocracies (i.e., the
    many Islamic "Republics") would be delighted to install a coercive,
    interfering Christian theocracy right here in our still grand, still secular United
    States.

    And the thing about "private industry" is that it operates from a
    for-profit motivation-- which, thanks to government aid and regulation and the
    occasional bailout, is a pretty good motivator... But, if the motivation is to
    do the most good for the most people, and not particularly to make a
    profit, Government may be just the ticket.

    Love&Enjoy, --ALAN--
    ===================================================


    In a message dated 7/2/2009 7:18:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
    writes:

    xfree9 wrote, in response to alko1001:

    What does government run better than private industry?

    If we can get Government to do it efficiently...

    The assumption that government can do it efficiently, added with the
    notion that it is "for all," is not very honorable, really. George Washington
    said in his farewell address that "government is not eloquence...it is
    force." When government "does something," it is doing it at least in part by
    coercion. God has a problem with coercion and force: Blessed are the
    peacemakers. Blessed are the meek. Using government to attain an ends is not
    peaceful, it is use of power. People cannot delegate to their government the power
    to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do
    themselves.

    Link to comment:
    http://blog.sojo.net/2009/07/02/three-moral-iss...

    --
    You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
    notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
    http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/

    **************Dell Deals: Treat yourself to a sweet deal on popular
    laptops!
    (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223100...)
  • It is so true that many companies had declared bankruptcies most of these companies are insurance companies, well the economic downturn we are experiencing all over the world is the main cause of this problem
  • It is so true that many companies had declared bankruptcies most of these companies are insurance companies, well the economic downturn we are experiencing all over the world is the main cause of this problem
  • By the way, Great post..
  • Any system run by private industry is likely to leave some unserved because they are not profitable. Where is the middle ground that provides efficiency without leaving behind the most needy? Either insurers need to be mandated to offer coverage to everyone or we must have a public alternative that will guarantee coverage to all.
  • prk
    Starting with the competion and lack of choices, 47% of healthcare is the goverment when you add up medicare and medicaid, secondly when our local paper the Chattanooga Times FreePress ran there hit job on lack of competion they only talked about the commercial side. Where close to 50% was spilit between BCBSTN, United Health and Cigna. They did not discuss how the individual market is broken down.

    If you simply changed the tax structure then you would encourage individuals to buy health insurance on their own, this would add to the competion.

    Here is a link on the Kennedy bill, I have a HDHP now, the Pols really hate these, since I see all the bills since I am paying.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536864955329...

    The BCBSTN is a non profit. About half of the BCBS are non profits, why are they never mentioned in the public option that the pols want us to have.
  • Trogdorprof
    Prk,

    1. “So there is no competion with 1500 insurance companies but 1501 there would be?”

    Yes. That 1500 # is misleading for the reason I mentioned above: “94% had commercial markets that were ‘highly concentrated’ by standards set by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Dept.” Mind you, these are the words of the American Medical Association! (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/03/09/bis...)

    For example, they found that in “Alabama, the biggest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, controls 83 percent of the statewide market. There, and in nine other states – Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa – the two largest health insurers control at least 80 percent of the market.” (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...)
    Much of this is due to the increased consolidation (mergers) of insurance companies (meaning that 1500 number can be reduced to a much smaller number of parent companies), so much so that a former top Federal Trade Commission official is requesting the Justice Department's Antitrust Division investigate the matter!

    So, the current market realities are plainly failing to produce competition because consumers don’t have 1500 choices, they often have 1 or 2 (says the AMA). So, introducing what would really be a 2nd or 3rd option that is more affordable, does not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, is available everywhere, and is not tied to a job, would absolutely provide significant competition! This is exactly why the insurance companies are so afraid.

    2. So when you say, “do you want [health care] ratiioned by the markets or the pols? The market is my preferance as a Christian,” I am truly alarmed:

    An ideological commitment to “the market” has nothing to do with biblical mores. If something as sacred as the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, then surely the market does not deserve unswerving loyalty. It must be evaluated for its practical value to produce good results for people in each sphere. As just noted, it is simply not producing good results by itself in the realm of access to health care. Hence the public option: it would directly increase access to those who have zero (the opposite of rationing) while forcing companies to be more competitive (and so give greater access, less rationing). Thus this actually works with the market, making it work more honestly. As I said before, I would trust a non-profit entity over a for-profit entity with my health care insurance (yes, even the government), given how the for-profit entities have behaved. (http://www.insurancecompanyrules.org/blog/entry...)


    3. “Under the Kennedy plan my insurance would not meet the guidelines and would go away.”

    I’m sorry, but can you produce a quote from the text of the bill that says as much? I’m not trying to be picky here, but I am unaware of any stipulation that would force certain insurance plans to “go away” for not meeting certain “guidelines.” If there is, that'd be good to know.

    (And which Kennedy plan are you referring to? The one produced a few days ago by the HELP Committee or his original one from a while ago?).


    4. “As far as covering 95% of the uninsured I doudt that when 20% are illegal ailens which none of the proposed plans cover.”

    The recent HELP Committee bill would ensure 20 million by 2019 and expand Medicare to cover 20 million more people. That’s 40 million out of 45 million uninsured. So, the bill would actually provide coverage to 89% of the uninsured. The 95% number actually refers to the % of the total population that would then be insured (my bad). And if we’re only talking about those who are here legally, then the number actually goes up to 97%. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/ar...).
  • nuclearferret
    Tax employer-provided health insurance programs, and I guarantee, unless prohibited, many rational employers will drop those benefit programs in a minute. Why? One of the advantages of "rich" health insurance as a benefit is that it has been "free" compensation to employees. Make it just like cash income, and employers can skip the headaches of shopping the business out to private insurers, boost hourly wages and scrap the whole thing.

    Which, I suspect, our government officials are intelligent enough to know and be planning for.
  • justintime
    I'm not sure what Ron Paul believes about non-profit agencies who take care of those who cannot afford health care and who cannot get insurance. Myself, I would support 100% tax deductions for all involved, including income taxes for employees who work for these agencies.
    Non profits are already tax exempt, and I agree it's fair that low wage health workers in non-profit organizations helping those without access to health care should also have income taxes waived.
    But when everyone has access to health care it won't be necessary to do this.

    Where people are subject to intimidating, intrusive bureaucratic demands in order to get a few crumbs of benefits. Would people coming in for illness that have stigmas attached, such as alcohol-drug addiction or obesity-related conditions be limited or denied benefits because of their supposed "chosen lifestyle?" Would these people, or else people with diabetes, cancer, or other expensive conditions be required to pay more, or would they be rationed?
    Having been forced once in my life to rely on food stamps and unemployment insurance to support my family, I know what you're talking about here. It was an extremely demoralizing experience which I would not wish on anyone (except maybe the top echelon of the Bush administration). Americans with 'expensive prior conditions' should have the same access as anyone else. This is what universal coverage is all about. Other nations with single payer insurance don't stigmatize those needing health care. Why should our system?

    Many private insurance companies discriminate against certain stigmatized health conditions such as AIDS, obesity, alcohol/drug/cigarette addiction or other mental health conditions. I'm not sure that a government-run plan would be any better.
    As consumers of single payer health care and as taxpayers, we have the right and responsibility to insist on humane, dignified delivery of health care to all Americans, including those with AIDS and mental health issues. We have zero influence on this issue with the present private system. It's a 'take what we give you or leave it' style health care system.

    As far as self induced health issues like obesity, alcohol/drug/cigarette addiction, I would find ways to incentivize healthy living and build these incentives into the new system to reduce overall costs of single payer health care. The present private system is not amenable to preventive health care. Which is the big reason why costs are out of control.

    It's up to us to actively demand that reasonable and humane features be designed into our health care system and to continue monitoring costs and quality control. We could have the best health care system in the world if we start paying attention. Our goal should be to achieve the healthiest population on the planet. Anything less is a cop out.
  • neuro_nurse
    Ando,

    You and Johnny are free to discuss abortion to your hearts’ content. You are also both welcome to peruse my profile for my comments about abortion which, I believe, will contradict your statement that “they don't say how or what they do to oppose it.”

    As I said, abortion is a topic discussed ad nauseam on this blog, and I have stated my opinions and beliefs about abortion too many times to be willing to rehash is for either you or a newcomer to this conversation.
  • starnt
    I am an Australian, and am horrified to learn about the American health system.As the richest nation in the world America can, and should do better.In Australia all citizens and residents have free hospital care, surgical proceedures (not cosmetic) etc....The cost to see a GP is very small, and generally free if you are unemployed. Access to psychiatric care is also free. We are not the richest nation in the world and we can formulate a working system. Perhaps Americas health authorities should start looking abroad for ideas on improvement.(or spend less on pointless wars) There is never an excuse for an American to die due to lack of health care.
  • WaveTossed
    "I like Ron Paul, especially for his stand against the Iraq War."

    Exactly. Ron Paul was the only truly anti-war candidate.

    "Does he support a public option in the new health care plan?
    If so I like him even more.
    If he doesn't support a public option, why doesn't he?"

    Instead of a public option, Rep. Paul believes in complete tax deductions for health expenses. So if I spend $1000 on insurance premiums, co-pays, and/or deductibles, I could deduct $1000 from my taxes that year.

    I'm not sure what Ron Paul believes about non-profit agencies who take care of those who camnnot afford health care and who cannot get insurance. Myself, I would support 100% tax deductions for all involved, including income taxes for employees who work for these agencies.

    I would prefer even a single-payer system instead of what we have now. However, I am distrustful of a government-run system. I wonder if it would be run the way that welfare or food stamps are run. Where people are subject to intimidating, instrusive bureaucratic demands in order to get a few crumbs of benefits. Would people coming in for illness that have stigmas attached, such as alcohol-drug addiction or obesity-related conditions be limited or denied benefits because of their supposed "chosen lifestyle?" Would these people, or else people with diabetes, cancer, or other expensive conditions be required to pay more, or would they be rationed?

    Many private insurance companies discriminate against certain stigmatized health conditions such as AIDS, obesity, alcohol/drug/cigarette addiction or other mental health conditions. I'm not sure that a government-run plan would be any better.

    I'm in a quandry about this. As I've said, I support Ron Paul's position. However, given taht it's highly doubtful that the government would be willing to give up the tax revenue that would be required to offer these tax deductions, I have to be practical. And I'd rather support a public option or even a single-payer system as opposed to what we have now.
  • WaveTossed
    "It's a testimony that the market clears out greedy investors"

    Also stupid investors. Such as the auto companies, AIG, and many of the banks. However, in their great wisdom, Congress (under both Bush and Obama) decided to subsidize these companies' greed and stupidity. So instead of AIG, GM, Chrysler and several banks going into the obvlion that they deserve, government is propping them up.
  • WaveTossed
    "3. The president does not want to tax benefits, but many economists do because they feel it encourages wasteful use of health care services, driving prices up. Besides, as you put it, this would only be on those with “better benefits” (i.e., not those who can least afford it, as I put it). To me that is more than acceptable."

    Imposing a new tax on working people in the form of taxing their health benefits is NOT acceptable. How would the government define "better benefits?" And it's most likely that the tax will keep on expanding until it includes "all employer-paid benefits." One big reason I voted for Obama and not for McCain was McCains' advocacy of this new tax. I'm glad to see that Obama still opposed this new tax. I'm sorry to see many "progressives" starting to embrace this idea of this new tax.

    Employer-paid health insurance plans do NOT encourage "wasteful spending." I don't know who came up with that idea or what statistics they twisted (if they even attempted to come up with statistics). I'm in an employer-provided health care plan. Each year, the premiums go up and up and each year, the benefits get cut back with higher co-pays and higher deductibles.

    Myself, I'd much rather fund any health care reforms with money saved from not engaging in wasteful military expenses gotten from the U.S. trying to be the Morality Thought Police of the world. Which of course adds tons of health care expenses when soldiers are wounded.
  • prk
    The states are self insured just like all big business, the sub out the administration to BCBS, Unitied Health or another insurer because of the effience they create by not having to deal with a state workforce.

    So there is no competion with 1500 insurance companies but 1501 there would be? Giving the pols power over our healthcare is just bad for most Americans. Remember the "better benefits tax" would not effect those under a collective bargaining contract.

    The pols have caused the problem getting them out of the way not more into it is how to solve it. Remember they want power, they do not care about you or me.

    As far as covering 95% of the uninsured I doudt that when 20% are illegal ailens which none of the proposed plans cover.

    Under the Kennedy plan my insurance would not meet the guidelines and would go away. So much for everyone being able to keep what they like now.

    Yes, healthcare is rationed, the question is do you want it ratiioned by the markets or the pols? The market is my preferance as a Christian.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008