Who Sinned, That This Child Was Born Uninsurable?

by Gunnar Cerda 10-16-2009

As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” (John 9:1-3 NRSV)

My son, Benjamin, is a great kid. He is smart. He has a great sense of humor. He loves slapstick humor and NASCAR. In 7th grade this year he is in advanced science and advanced math. He has the potential to be an actuary or an aeronautical engineer when he grows up.

Benjamin also has an Individualized Education Plan. For despite his gifts in science and math, he struggles profoundly with receptive and expressive language skills. His challenges with motor skills make it difficult for him to write for extended periods of time. The classroom can become overwhelming for him at times, causing emotional and mental “meltdowns.” For all of his gifts, Benjamin is equally beset by challenges in areas many of us take for granted every day.

See, Benjamin has Aspergers Syndrome, which is an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Some would call this a “disability.” Insurance companies tend to call it a “pre-existing condition.” Truth be told, it is about as pre-existing as life itself, having existed since birth.

One in every 150 children is diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorders. Because of this “pre-existing condition” label, the effects of Autism Spectrum Disorders, as well as remedies, therapies, and supports are not covered by insurance companies. This means that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of children do not have access to health care, even if their parents do.

When the question was posed to Jesus ages ago, it was the same basic question we face today: Who sinned that this child should be marginalized and excluded from full participation in society as a person of sacred worth? Jesus’ answer then is just as relevant today: No one sinned, and no one deserves to be excluded.

Our kids on “the spectrum” have done nothing to “deserve” the challenges which they face; they did not engage in any reckless or detrimental activity through which they brought about their challenges. In short, they have not sinned.

And neither have their parents. There is no activity in which parents have engaged which “caused” autism. In fact, there is nothing they could have done to prevent the lifelong challenge they now face. In short, there is nothing that was done which should have deserved exclusion from full participation in society, or removed such a person from the care and compassion of the community, either then or now.

Jesus does offer another perspective, however; he invites his followers and listeners to look at the situation through a different lens — the lens of faith. It is as if to say, regardless of how the situation came to be, God’s realm can be seen through this opportunity. Through healing and reconciliation, the Glory of God, which is love, can be seen in the world today.

This is the same invitation which calls out to us today, for God is still speaking. We have the opportunity to raise our prophetic voices on behalf of those who have trouble expressing their thoughts and needs. We have the opportunity to speak for those whom society has marginalized and designated “disabled” and “uninsurable.” We have the opportunity to co-create a new future with God, one where those who have been outcast are re-integrated into the beloved community of caring. We have before us the chance to live into our call to discipleship as advocates for the realm of God.

Health-care reform is not simply some ivory tower debate. It is a real issue which affects real people — people who already pay for insurance, as well as those who can not acquire coverage. It is an issue which calls us to raise our voices on behalf of God, for all of the children of God to be treated with steadfast love and justice.

Now is the time for us to heed the call. Now is the time for us to raise our voices. Not just for me as a parent, not simply in response to me as a minister. Not just for Benjamin, or the other kids similar to him in our community. But instead, for the millions of children affected by Autism Spectrum Disorders, both now and in the future. For I have no doubt that if we do, then truly the Glory of God will be seen in the midst of the “other abilities” of the children of sacred worth on the Autism Spectrum, and all the children labeled with and excluded by “disabilities.”

Rev. Gunnar A. Cerda MDiv, is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and lives in Delaware, Ohio.

Categories: Health, Theology

hammerud

Sorry about your son, and I do think there needs to be health care reform. However, when you say "we have the opportunity to co-create a new future with God, one where those who have been outcast are re-integrated into the beloved community of caring...," I infer that you support the health care "reform" efforts that are being pushed by the White House and elements of congress. The problem is that the idea of health care reform as it is being proposed is nothing more than a smokescreen for expanding government control over the lives of individual citizens. There are ways to address the legitimate shortcomings you highlight, without expanding government control. From the perspective of Scripture, governments are to be respected because, in our fallen world, they are ordained by God; but they also are correctly depicted in Scripture as wild beasts, and we are making a great error when we remove the leash from our wild beast. If the White House and congress get these "reforms" through, we will not like the consequences. In the 20th century, most people who were killed in the world were killed by their own governments. All of those governments were comprised of the same elements that comprise our government -- fallen, sinful people like me and you. Fix health care, but in ways that limit government.

BlueDeacon

You'll have to do better than that. In this country, using the excuse of "governmental control" is really a smokescreen for saying "We don't want to give up our privileged status." That's the bottom line.

hammerud

Not true at all. Health care needs reform, but not with expanded
government control.

BlueDeacon

I beg to differ. In this country government has been THE primary force for social justice, and believe you me that has caused a great deal of resentment toward the less-powerful. See, people like the idea of "helping the poor" -- that is, unless and until it actually costs them something, and that's what really drives the complaints about "big government."

hammerud

We should help the poor. That means I should use my money to help the
poor, and I do. I should not take someone else's money and use it to
help the poor. If I do, I'm not helping the poor. I'm stealing. The
government should be out of the social welfare business. Their
misguided involvement in all of this social welfare stuff has helped
to bankrupt us. Social security is broke. Medicare is broke. And we
want the government now to take over health care?? We are broke. We
have no money. And, regarding the government being the primary force
for social justice, there are millions of babies that have been killed
in abortion consistent with established law. Where is the social
justice for them?? As I said, I respect government consistent with
Romans 13, but do not look to government to right the ills of this
world. Ultimately, the will be righted by the return of Christ.

BlueDeacon

That doesn't help when law and custom supported by the "majority" help to keep people powerless, as was the case in the South; the opposition to the civil-rights movement, may I remind you, was justified by fears of "big government."

And speaking of which, what (from a Christian perspective) is the role of government? To restrain evil and administer justice. Government steps in when, and only when everyone is "[doing] right in his own eyes" to the detriment of the least, last and lost. Basically, if you don't want the government to step in, "act justly and love mercy" -- I see "conservatives" as so obsessed with maintaining their ideology they forget the real issue, which is the medically uninsured.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

As my former pastor, who is by no means liberal politically or socially, said, "The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

He wasn't making a plea for tithes or monetary gifts for the church or the poor (although I think that would be nice), he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

I'd really like to know, how many of the wealthiest 1-2%, who were the largest recipients of the Bush tax cuts started giving more to the poor as a result? The, "if only I wasn't taxed to death" argument for not giving is specious.

BlueDeacon

...he was making the point that the complaints about big government and taxes usually come down to greed or avarice.

The real issue is power, and to quote Charles Colson, it's like saltwater -- the more you drink the thirstier you get (which can lead to scapegoating). Anyway, I often wonder what would happen if every sincere Christian actually did tithe his/her income regardless of government.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

Yes, you are right, the issue is always power- people only use money to acquire power.

And I often wonder the same thing about tithing.

xfree9

I sat in the third or fourth row yesterday, and when the offering plate was passed, we saw a nickel and two pennies... my wife looked at me and chuckled.

Now I don't mean to be judgmental, but I'm pretty sure that everyone in the rows ahead of us could spare a few more pennies, or dollars, or whatever... Maybe not, but my hunch is, given the demographic of our church, that wasn't a "widows mite" offering.

If every sincere Christian would actually give 10%, and were involved in ministry,rather than having the attitude that ministry is for the "ministers" (FT church workers), I'd say the Church would largely be meeting the need that so many believe the government should be doing.

scat

If only .............. It would be wonderful if people really did what Christ taught us to do. Your exprience with the "offering" really is pretty typical, and has been for the last 2000 years. Wishful thinking is not going to make it happen. That is why the government is the tool of choice for social justice. WE could wait another 2000 years and the church would still not have the manpower or the funds.

xfree9

I disagree very strongly, precisely because it sells out the power of the gospel to change lives apart from legislating it. Israel—a nation whose very own covenant with God did not keep them abiding just laws—is proof that legislating justice is a misadventure.

If God's love is powerful enough to change the world, why does it need the government to do the work of the Kingdom? The government only has its comparative advantage in violent coercion to do what it needs to do. Why compromise the gospel message of peace by joining forces with the kingdom of the world?

Not that you specifically have this attitude, but it seems that "progressive" Christians who are satisfied with government "solutions" simply can't abide that other Christians aren't doing the work of the Kingdom, and so we must make them (and all the non-Christians around them) do so by use of force. So much for "follow me." Say hello to, "Do it or die!"

scat

We use the government as a tool, the same way we use medicine as a tool. God could cure us all of all of our ills, but He doesn't because He expects us to use the brains he gave us to do things for ourselves that we are able to do.

The government is not ony a tool, it is us. We are not talking about a monarchy where all the power resides in one or a handful of people. We live in a democratic republic that we are all a part of and share the power. We also share the responsibility to use that power wisely. How we use that power tells the truth about us.

xfree9

Government may indeed be a tool, but it is certainly not "us." There is nothing further from the truth. It may not be a monarchy, but when under 1,000 people (elected or not) have the ability to dictate to others what they can and cannot do, or what they must do, over the millions of citizens in our nation, not to mention the foreign policy decisions that can be made, that is not a "power in the people." That is a heavy concentration of power with ostensible "shared power," but that power does not exist. Not to mention, using such "power" to control the lives of others is not a very Christian ethic to follow. The kingdoms of this world use power-over mechanisms because that is all they have at their disposal. Might does not make right, whether in a monarchy or in a democracy. The Kingdom of God uses a power-under, servanthood approach to change.

xfree9

Let me clarify a point about the concentration of power and its relationship to the power being based in "the people." When power is concentrated and delegated to the highest possible government agency (in the US the "federal government"), power is not "in the people." When governments are local and power is less concentrated, for instance, among the 50 states, or even in counties and cities, the power could be said to be more "of the people" or "in the people," because it is closer to the people it is said to have derived from.

It is laughable to conclude that because I can vote in a national election that I am connected to the government in a shared role. In fact, that's exactly the illusion the government would like you to have, because it gives you the feeling of involvement without actually being able to do anything.

ando

"The same people who complain about big government and taxes are usually the same ones who don't tithe."

No doubt he has statistical facts to back him up. Unlike the researcher who did find that conservatives were more generous than liberals, which differed from his hypothesis.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

He was speaking about people in his own congregation. I think he would know and I take him at his word.

I should have clarified that he was not speaking about "all people" but people in our church. Anecdotal, not scientific evidence, but pretty illuminating considering the very conservative leanings of this particular pastor (whom I adore) and his flock (whom I also adore).

RadicalChristianLibrarian

How do you propose to reform health care? It's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

Insurance, pharma, and health care conglomerates are so powerful right now that they are sucking us dry- I can barely afford my premiums (which keep rising each year, although my income doesn't) or my co-pays. And I worry every day that if I do get sick that I'll be denied coverage or dropped. How else are we supposed to fix this if not by government intervention and regulation? Personally, I'm not convinced that this will happen either- too many congressmen/women have sold out to these industries- Democratic and Republican.

I just don't see another way. I'd really like to know if there is another way to tame these beasts of industry.

hammerud

Part of the reason health care is so expensive is because the
government got into it in the first place with Medicare etc. Once the
free market was invaded and people figured out that they can get money
simply by filling out forms, prices began to escalate. I think the
government could remove state barriers for insurance companies,
giving increased options for insurance to those of us who need
insurance. It would also greatly increase competition among insurance
companies, and that lowers cost. The government could make it illegal
for any insurance company to deny coverage based on pre-existing
conditions. I don't have all the answers, but I if I were king I
would tap into the brain power available to government to find
solutions that do not increase government control. Government control
might be OK with a good king, but a danger when that power is in the
hands of a bad king. I want health care reform, but not with more
government. And I feel for you with your health care costs. I have
loved ones in the same boat, and it bothers me.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

Actually, it is very difficult to apply and qualify for medicaid. Medicare is a little easier because you are eligible once you reach the age of 65. Extremely poor people and seniors had it much worse before Medicare /Medicaid was enacted. I would argue that costs of health care increased when the insurance middle men started to get in the way. They (and others who sought to profit from the industry) made a health care system, something that should benefit individual people and the nation as a whole, into a for-profit free for all. I don't believe that health care should be a profit-based system.

That is not to say that I don't believe that doctors and hospitals should be reimbursed at fair rates for the services they provide to patients. It's the rest of the waste in between that I have a problem with.

I'm not convinced that removing state barriers would do anything to control costs- they're all owned by the same companies anyway. And service provided in the poorer states may be all that is affordable to poor people in other states.

As for getting rid of pre-existing conditions- I am right there with you. This would do a lot to ease the anxiety I and many of your loved ones feel, and ease the suffering of those who do have pre-existing conditions.

I suffer from terrible migraines, neck and back pain. Physical therapy has helped in the past, so as soon as I got student health insurance (paid $1200 for it! and the premium was $1500 this year) I went to the doctor and was basically told, sorry, you'll have to suffer in pain for six months until your insurance will cover it. Mine is a small example, but exemplifies the barbarity of our "health care" system.