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)

  • 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.
  • carlcopas
    Letjustice,
    actually the comparison with Falwell and Robertson helped a great deal.

    Thanks.
  • tjgraycc
    If pharmacists or other health-care providers have a moral objection to dispensing medication or care, they should leave that occupation. And refusal to dispense medical care or prescribed medication is tantamount to making a medical decision that the individual is not qualified to do. I worked for several years for a defense contractor, when I could no longer, in good conscience, work on military projects because of my Christian beliefs, I quit and went to a new job.
  • butchragland
    "The government that has permitted these hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud to go unchecked should prove that it can eliminate this corruption before instituting any new government plan. juithod"

    This is true, BIG BUTT one of the main problems with finding a solution; those who say it is not or cannot be proven. We must pass laws to address the problem then change them when they have demostrated that they didn't work perfectly. Or, I'm saying don't let good be the enemy of perfect.

    We need to call congress to do the right thing, the best they can and not let the party of "NO" cause us to do nothing!

    The emergency room solution is inefficient and expensive and needs to be addressed. Don't allow those opposed to healthcare reform use the fact that "everyone is treated in the emergency room" as an excuse for not making effective, efficient laws.

    Fair and balanced, do you hear me FOX News? You Godless bastards! Can you picture a show on FOX News with Jesus as the star.
  • judithod
    While I can’t pretend to know the will of God in regard to sickness and health, I do believe that our nation does have a moral obligation to provide health care to its citizens, which it is already doing for even the poorest. Too often in the debate, we ignore the existence of Medicaid and its associated programs and the fact that it is illegal for emergency rooms to turn away people who are unable to pay for medical care.

    While the government currently provides access to health care for all, what it does not provide is health insurance for all. Mr. Wallis uses the figure of 46 million uninsured. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 45.7 million actually claimed to be uninsured in 2007. The Census Bureau further breaks down this figure:

    Medicaid undercount: 6.4 million (those failing to report coverage by Medicaid)
    Medicaid/SCHIP eligible: 4.3 million
    Non-citizens: 9.3 million
    Over 300% of poverty line: 10.1 million
    Childless adults (18-34 yr old): 5.0 million
    Remaining uninsured: 10.6 million

    The “remaining uninsured” 10.6 million are U.S. citizens with income below 300% of poverty, nonparticipants in or ineligible for a subsidized health-insurance program, and not a childless adult in the age range of 18-34 years. These are the people whose health-care concerns need to be immediately addressed. Meanwhile, we have a moral obligation to take the time to cogently examine the issues of health-care reform and how to undertake it on a fiscally sound basis.

    In his speech on his plan, the president stated that “the only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies. . . .” The government that has permitted these hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud to go unchecked should prove that it can eliminate this corruption before instituting any new government plan.
  • kansasmennonite
    I was asking grad student if he was white like you did the other guy. In agreement with you for the most part.
  • butchragland
    My point is not about race, it is about a social economic group and any race could behave as I observe the "Self-Righteous Religious White Right".

    This group enjoyed the greatest economic period ever!
    They wasted it with sick consumerism, failed to save or conserve this prosperity. Allowed the lily whilte Republican party to take away much of the regulation of wall street and banks leading to a huge recession/depression that isn't over yet.

    Now, I see this social economic group as being frightened and acting poorly and unchristian. If you feel that I'm being racist it may apply to you but I'm not talking about race.

    Again I AM talking about a social economic group that happens to be white, parallel to the ruling Saudi kingdom or any group in any country that has control. The white middle class gave their prosperity to "White" men on wall street and the result scares them to death, they don't know what to do. Be generous christians and share the bounty of this great country and get off the crazy idea that capitalism solves eveything, if capitalism could solve everything then we would not have any problems with the economy OR healthcare.
  • kansasmennonite
    "And I will bet big money you are lily white!"
  • 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.
  • instructor29
    Thanks for making your points about the cost of the equipment and people that healthcare requires. I work for a 'non-profit' health system. While we are a not-for-profit entity, we do have to be profitable to maintain our mission to provide healthcare to our community. Let me give the readers an example of the need for profitability.

    Last year, the vice-president over the area I work in told us that at the end of the summer of 2008, we were sitting on a cushion of $7 million. By October, when the effects of the sagging economy were really felt, we had spent over $3 million of that cushion on people unable to pay for their care. Since there was no end in sight to this trend we had to tighten our belts to be able to fulfill our mission to the community we serve. Hopefully people see the point DDB61 is trying to make. Profit is necessary in any business, even for noble causes like providing healthcare and providing food. Otherwise, you will not have them.
  • scout2
    Why is this racist allowed to post these types of racist comments here?!
  • scout2
    I see quite a difference in your snake bite vs. abortion. The health care given to cure your bite will save your life. The "health care" provided by an abortionist to abort a child will end a life.

    See the difference?
  • Grad_student
    Housing is also a right, is it not? If no one should be denied health insurance, no one should be denied a house. But houses cost money.

    Where does it stop? Government intervention that is. If the government gives us health care, shouldn't it also give us housing, food, education, etc?

    Some people do get all that for "free." Why should they be the only ones to get it? Why should I have to pay for those things when others get it for free via welfare, food stamps, etc??

    We are quickly becoming very much dependent on the government, and it's going to be the middle class and those who work at jobs that will be hurt the most.
  • Grad_student
    "And I will bet big money you are lily white!"

    RACISM AT ITS FINEST.
  • 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.
  • Following up to the replies to my comment. Both here is Brian McLaren claiming that ObamaCare will not cover abortion. Here is Jim Wallis claiming the same thing. Here is proof that Democrats rejected an attempt to stop abortion from being covered by ObamaCare. Here is news that the Obama Administration is trying to force a Catholic college to cover abortion in their insurance policy, thereby infringing on their conscience. Another false claim by Wallis and McLaren. So who is deceiving who here?
  • canucklehead
    how about stronger government and smaller churches?
  • 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.
  • letjusticerolldown
    My state (Alabama) essentially has an insurance monopoly (BCBS). Single-payer is a government monopoly on collection and payment--but not on delivery of care. Look at www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html which is a good, straightforward case for single-payer and why it isn't on the table. I'm not totally convinced--but it is worth watching because the case isn't really being made in Congress.
  • ElrondPA
    A situation like your wife's is what insurance should be for--massive bills that no one could possibly cover, which thankfully are also rare. Because they're rare, they can be spread out over the whole range of policyholders, so that no one has an unbearable load. It's the same idea behind home insurance--the odds that any particular person will have a fire are small, and by pooling payments from a large group, the few who face disaster aren't wiped out.

    But we've turned health insurance into prepaid all-inclusive health care. Why should insurance be used every time we go to the doctor for a sore throat? (Home insurance equivalent: "Hey, State Farm, you should pay for the plumber to unplug the toilet!") That's just a part of life, and we should budget for that just like we budget for food, clothing, and shelter. The administrative costs of those piddling bills is enormous. And if people are paying costs more directly, they're more likely to ask themselves, "Is this really going to be a benefit worth the cost?"

    Unfortunately, when patients aren't paying anything, they have less incentive to watch out for abusive providers: "Sure, send me another wheelchair. The fabric is discolored." OK, so that's an exaggeration, but durable equipment is one of the biggest abuse problems, and if it's no money out of your pocket, it's a lot easier to accept something that's unnecessary.

    I'm not saying that going for IVF for the fifth time is thoughtless. (Even if it's paid for, there are physical and emotional costs.) I'm saying that (aside from the ethics of IVF, which I'm not going to get into here) IVF is very expensive and often unsuccessful, and I think when people pay for it directly (in full or in non-trivial part), they do a more careful job of weighing the alternatives.

    I agree with you that high-deductible plans with HSAs are a good way to harness the incentives in the right direction; that's actually more or less the plan that I have for my family. But monopolies, whether governmental or "private" (almost all monopolies have governmental ties in some form), tend not to provide the best service or the best efficiency. That's the problem I have with the single-payer model.
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