RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

A Faith Declaration for Health-Care Reform

by Jim Wallis 10-08-2009

Over the course of the health-care debate, voices of faith have been raised about the moral values at stake beneath the policy discussions. As bills are finalized and moved through both chambers of Congress, now more than ever we need to remind ourselves of the values that move us to reform.  From the Bill of Rights to the abolition of slavery, from women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement, those who have raised the question of values have often changed our country for the better.  Change can be scary in uncertain times, but it always comes when a nation chooses hope over fear.

Unfortunately, God sent Moses down from the mountain with only the Ten Commandments, and not a health-care bill ready to be passed out of committee. There is no one “right” religious position on how health care should be provided. But I believe there are some fundamental moral and biblical principles on which to evaluate any final legislative agreement, principles on which many people of faith — even politically diverse people — might agree. After the heat of the summer’s confrontations over health care, it’s time for a cooler fall debate. It’s time for a re-set of the health-care debate, and a return to some basic principles could help.

Five Principles of Faith for Health-Care Reform

  1. Health, not sickness, is the will of God. We can see this from the story in Genesis of the garden, where sickness was never found, and from the vision in Revelation of a city in which death will be no more. When we are instruments of bringing about that good health, we are doing the work of God. The gospel stories of Jesus healing people, of restoring them to physical wholeness and full participation in their community, always signaled God’s presence.
  2. United we stand, divided we fall. The division between those who can afford adequate coverage and those who cannot is a threat to our unity, to the health of our neighbors, and to our nation.  46 million people in our country are uninsured, and millions more who are insured still can’t keep up with their bills.  Our moral and religious standards say no one should be left out of a system simply because of not being able to afford good health.  The common good requires a system that is accessible to all who need it.
  3. Patients not profits. No one should be discriminated against in their health care because they are sick.  Our faith mandates that we give extra consideration and help to those who are sick, but every time an insurance company denies coverage for “pre-existing conditions,” excluded ailments, or confusing fine print, their profits go up.  Every doctor I know decided to pursue medicine to help people.  Many insurance companies make a profit by not helping people, but our faith requires it.
  4. Life and liberty must both be protected. The health-care system should protect the sanctity and dignity of life in accordance with existing law and the current rules, and the prohibition on federal funding of abortions should be consistently and diligently applied to any legislation.  Strong “conscience” protections should be enacted for health-care workers to ensure they have the liberty to exercise their moral and religious beliefs in their profession.  Evidence suggests that supporting low-income and pregnant women with adequate health care increases the number of women who chose to carry their child to term — if we reform health care in the right way, we can reduce abortions in the U.S. While religious people don’t all agree on all the issues of abortion, we should agree that those differences must not be allowed to derail the crucial need for comprehensive health-care reform.
  5. For the next generation, health-care reform should be based on firm financial foundations. Health care is a vital and wise investment for the future of our families and society.  But the way we pay for it should be fair and equitable and seek to lessen the burden on succeeding generations — both in bringing everyone into the system and by bringing the costs of health care under control over time. Our religious traditions suggest that social justice and fiscal responsibility must not be pitted against each other, but balanced together in sound public policy that is affordable for individuals and for society.

So let us have the moral dialogue and debate — let’s take the best of who we are, the greatest parts of our tradition, and use that to lead the way.  The misinformation, falsehoods, and outright lies that have been circulating obscure the moral and religious core of this debate: that millions of people are suffering in an inequitable and inefficient health-care system, and that too many powerful people are profiting from that broken system in defiance of the common good.  Perhaps the faith community could help model a more civil debate and find the sensible moral center that will help the country find the best solutions to the health of the nation.

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

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)

  • letjusticerolldown
    Is it just for someone who invests money in new pacemaker technology to make a profiit--or are have they only acted ethically if they lose the investment? Or is the value that there should be no risk-taking?

    On what moral base do you weigh unrestricted access against financial soundness?
  • rhirschler
    As a Christian physician who has worked during the past 40 years in several rural mission hospitals on three contenents, I have seen and learned much about how health affects people and their actions affect health. Unfortunately the USA has confused health care with sickness care. At my 40th class reunion this year at NE U Med School I learned that they have finally made a position for Dean of Public Health in their school. Most people in America do not even know one public health doctor, and unfortunately our system separates the public health approach from the curative approach. We always need preventive health measures and sometimes the curative approach. Also, unfortunately, we reimburse the curative activities much higher than the preventive teaching and activities. Should we have people who do the things like smoking and other proven health destroying activities pay more to cover the extra expense in curative care?
    In another area, we hear some Christians say we do not want the government to have a say in our health care. At the same time they support our government in fighting wars in other peoples countries so that our government can tell them what to do. I find real inconsistancies in their logic. It seems like spending some tax money to support people seeking health care in this country is a much more Christian approach than to spend our taxes on milatary hardware and war on the people we called our friends 20 years ago.
    Sincerely in Christ,
    Richard Hirschler MD
  • letjusticerolldown
    I very much agree. We have a whole bunch of Christians arguing about whether it is more Christian that we pool a bunch of money and pay for healthcare (thru government) or that we pool a bunch of money (charitable giving) and pay for healthcare.

    And this is our Christian contribution to health--to justice--to fighting sin, disease, and death????

    Is it possible our arguments seem hopeless and helpless because we ask the wrong questions?

    Wallis keeps trying to nudge us to articulating a moral base for the discussion which is right. But we also just need some simple distinctions to focus the public discussion/debate.

    We could list out Ten Social Assets Contributing to Health for All

    1. Theology that supports longevity and health (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists)
    2. Peacemaking. Non-violence.
    3. Healthy environments
    4. Public health
    5. Community care for chronic disease and disability
    6. Fitness and maximum physical function and rehab
    7. Preventive Care
    8. Integration of acute sick care with wellness/prevention/alternative therapies, etc.
    9. Decentralized, accessible, patient-centered, universal access system
    10. Access and provision for catastrophic care

    That's off the top of my head. Poorly thought through--all kinds of gaps. Just an example.

    Then when we tackle reform we could say which components we are addressing and which ones we are not addressing. A reform package must clearly delineate what it is and is not addressing. Part of the reasons I (and others) fear reform is that if the government has a vested interest (e.g. cost control) in all things related to health--then it has an interest in every element of my life, my food choices, where I live, how I live, the treatments I choose to get (or not get) for my children, ad infinitum--it has an interest in every element of the environment--it has an interest in my stress levels. Anyplace the government wants to tread, it can tread on the back of "health."

    Effective reform must have limits. Otherwise, amendments can run down every possible bunny trail in the society--and the legislation becomes incomprehensible and unmanageable--creating endless bureaucratic inefficiency.

    It is like tax reform. The last tax reform was 25 years ago. Since then there are about 15,000 changes to the code. It is simply too cumbersome to overhaul. An argument for some kind of flat-tax or fair-tax is not that it fixes everything--but that it overhauls a complex system into a simpler one that has the capacity to be managed and changed.

    This is part of my rationale for a single-payer system. So we can actually squeeze out (reallocate) costs; simplify; and put ourselves in a position where we can at least attempt to steer this monster.

    Then the church needs to stand up and articulate the components of the health system it can engage. These possibilities are real and they are significant.

    In Montgomery (AL) the major hospital system still functions with formal ties to the Montgomery Baptists. Church organizations have been the largest single contributor to a national system of senior housing and nursing facilities. We've started everything under the sun--and act like we barely have a corporate clue.

    The Leadership Network (outfit in Dallas that advances innovation in megachurches--basically) has a health initiative in which they highlight the basic strategies churches are taking in health-related issues. They see about 10% of what is already out there--let alone think creatively about the ways the church could engage.

    There are networks of tens of thousands who share each others medical expenses. These kinds of things could be exponentially multiplied. There is no reason only 7th day adventists should live to an average of 89 years.

    And there is no reason we should not make 100 times the use of the expertise and perspectives of persons like yourself in bringing a cross-fertilization of ideas around the world so as to increase health here and globally.

    One would almost think we don't really want health. Health reform is something to shout about at each other. And at the end of the day--go on our merry way--until we are on the side of the road begging the Good Samaritan for mercy.
  • irish_annie
    well said, doc. we are indeed talking 'sick care' here rather than healthcare. and along with any privilege must come responsibility. just as Jesus asked the paralytic by the pool, for those who smoke, eat and drink themselves to near death and then want others to magically make them better, i have to ask, "do you REALLY want to get well...?!" selah.
    my daughter is an ICU nurse in a unit where they attempt to wean patients who have developed chronic dependency on a ventilator. a very high percentage of these are either smokers or the morbidly obese. i don't resent them. i pity them. but, it's a concern we must address, for the cost of care is bankrupting our healthcare industry. we need education and prevention before folks get deathly ill, rather than trying to treat only the symptoms of years of self-abuse.
  • JGL1201
    "Patients, not profits".
    While the emphasis and criticism aree well taken, its "both and", not "either-or". If there are not profits for providers there will be no health care.
  • csack
    you should revise your numbers. didn't obama magically take the number of uninsured from 46 million down to 30 million in his speech a couple weeks ago?
  • padrewayne
    The President receives his "numbers" from advisors.

    And at any rate... does the actual number make a difference? If there is just one uninsured person -- isn't that one too many?

    This is a moral issue, an issue of faithfulness -- not just fairness. We are told by our Lord to take care of "the least of these." We must not do otherwise.
  • If there is just one uninsured person -- isn't that one too many?

    When you are thinking on collectivist terms, not really. When you think about individuals as individuals, then of course it is not a good thing. Wallis et al think in collectivist terms: we, us, united, etc. What they fail to recognize is that a collective has no "will" apart from whatever influences from within are most powerful. Power over people is not the accomplice of the kingdom; peaceful action and nonviolent change is. Using collectivist terms like those above only serve as a power-over argument to manipulate others into bending to their agenda, ostensibly the "will of the people," which is nonexistent. It was not the "will of the people" that Obama got elected; it was the "vote of the majority," which is not equal to "will of the people."
  • csack
    i just find it amusing that the article speaks of falsehoods and misinformation and then proceeds to perpetuate a falsehood in making the argument.

    you are correct, the number is large no matter what, but i like moving forward from a position of truth.
  • randyhorick
    Of the 45-47 million uninsured, about 1/3 of these are illegal aliens (or, if you prefer, undocumented aliens). Since Obama is not proposing to cover these, the 30 million figure may count only the number of uninsured citizens of the US.

    Letjusticerolldown, you are presenting a false dichotomy. The wording of point #3 could be better, but I don't hear people seriously suggesting that the profit motive should be removed from healthcare -- only that it cannot be a motive that trumps all other considerations.
  • kansasmennonite
    I feel so much better that you claim only 30million are without insurance?

    I thought the illegals would get insurance!

    Seriously, Todd Tiahard of Kansas (congressman) says that the 47 million uninsured are illegals (don't worry about them), unemployed (they will eventually get work with insurance), and those that simply don't want insurance. Nice congressman, huh? With politicians like this there is no need for health reform. Way to go repubs.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Every person residing in the US (not coming solely for healthcare) ought have basic access to health services. (My value)

    Did Mr Wallis address this??

    So is this his list of values--or the ones he wants on the table to advance current reform legislation? The message is again weakened by not being clear if he is wearing hat of public prophet or public advocate.

    Both roles are fine Jim. But should not be confused or you compromise both. I'm sure he's heard the point countless times. And no clarity has been forthcoming. So I presume the obfuscation is intentional. i.e. A compromised voice.
  • carlcopas
    "The message is again weakened by not being clear if he is wearing hat of public prophet or public advocate."

    I'm not clear on why Wallis can't wear both hats simultaneously. For that matter, I'm not clear on why there are even two hats.
  • letjusticerolldown
    By public advocate, I mean making a decision that a particular party, leader or agenda represents the best option for governance and then working day and night to advance such.

    By public prophet, I mean one who attempts to represent God's word faithfully in spite of what that might do to one's well-beling.

    Sometimes Wallis is cheerleading Obama--parroting the Whiehouse PR apparatus. Sometimes he speaks as Biblical prophet.

    When one puts on the hat of Whitehouse Partisan--and on one's chest wear's title: Prophet of God it looks like one attempts to conflate the Whitehouse agenda with the Kingdom. This is the very kind of confusion he used to write cleary about as being a mistake.
  • carlcopas
    But if the public prophet thinks the president is doing something right, he can't say that because then he would be a public advocate?
  • letjusticerolldown
    The point is the roles are distinct; and confusing if he does not distinguish. Many persons wear multiple hats.

    Jim Wallis can stand up and support the candidacy of B Obama. Jim Wallis cannot stand up on behalf of the Sojourners Community and back the candidacy of B Obama if Sojo holds a non-profit, charitable status with IRS. He can wear multiple hats.

    I don't think it is a big matter to ask for clarity when he shifts into partisan gear. I have zero problem with the role. It is conflating the roles. It is no different than if he were President. He could well believe a particular policy were the will of God for the nation. But I would not expect him to stand up and say--"This is the will of God."

    If he stands up today and says: "I support B Obama increasing troop levels in Afghanistan", is it because he believes the war to be just and the strategy right from a Kingdom perspective; or is it partisan support to B Obama so his capacity to accomplish larger agendas in foreign and domestic affairs is enhanced?? I can hang (maybe) with either argument--but I certainly would want him to specify the reason.

    Do you think Falwell, Robertson, et al were smart (even if their policy positions were pure Christian) to allow Conservative Republican stategists to leverage their religious voices for political power??? I'd say the same think to Dobson, or any of them. If they think partisan support of a party is best--go ahead. But explain that is what you are doing and don't conflate that with your Christian duty to call all things under the Lordship of Christ.

    I may just be writing very poorly and not explaining with any clarity.
  • carlcopas
    Letjustice,
    actually the comparison with Falwell and Robertson helped a great deal.

    Thanks.
  • letjusticerolldown
    If moral values are to be used as a basis for reviewing policies then they do need to be clear. When high costs are driven significantly by expensive technologies/interventions at the margins of what produces good outcomes there is then significant risk-taking (investment) undertaken to meet a public value that all possible human intervention be undertaken to lessen suffering/death. In our system, this then depends on significant possibility of profits--and the investment of capital that might have gone to other purposes. So I tend to think the false dichotomy rests in the formulations that Wallis makes--and is why I ask the question for clarification.

    If the values he articulates are as important as he states (and I do believe they are) then they should not be sloppy.
  • seanbaines
    it should be nonprofit. Question : When you see an accident and there is a injured person, do you ask " are you legal or illegal.?If this person is illegal, you just him/her die.? No you do not. You take him to a hospital and the "payment" is paid by us. the taxpayer. Why not give them basic health care and let the pay a decent healthcare premium so some of it is paid for. These illegals are not going away so we have to deal with them as they do the jobs nobody wants to do. Right. Does the word "Christian fit in here some where.?
  • letjusticerolldown
    I absolutely agree. And I would not ever refer to persons as illegals. It is like addressing people who speed as illegals.

    I think our failure to govern immigration is atrocious. But that is our government. And it is not fixed by hammering on people who are told by our society, "Come but pretend you don't exist. Work so we can't see you. And don't you dare get in an accident or spill a cup of coffee."

    Immigration is dealt with in comprehensive immigration reform. This is health reform and our consideration of how to respond to the man laying on the side of the road who looks different than us.
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