Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Remembering Sen. Edward Kennedy

by Valerie Elverton Dixon 08-26-2009 | 5:30pm
Print
12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

I woke up this morning planning an essay for God's Politics about love and fear. It will be another essay in support of health-care reform. This issue has commandeered my pen.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I woke up this morning to the news of the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. Now another subject compels my pen. I remember Edward Kennedy personally. I was in the same room with him twice in my life. Once, on a field trip to the Congress, when we visited the Senate chamber, with surprisingly few senators present, Kennedy came into the room briefly. It was little more than a celebrity sighting.

I also heard him speak at Temple University in the 1990s. He spoke of his brothers. He spoke of public service. He spoke of living life with a purpose. Our education, work, and lives ought to aim for a goal larger than ourselves, our reach ought to exceed our grasp and shape a better world.

Today as we face his death and the reality of death itself that will claim us all, we are reminded of the mystery that is life and death. We become a discreet individual when we emerge from our mother's womb, born from water and blood. Someone cuts the cord that connects us to her. We begin to breathe on our own, the breath, the spirit comes into us and the is-ness of us is a singular self. For the rest of our lives we live the ethical ambiguity of our moral responsibility to our individual self and our responsibilities to God, humanity, nature and creation. That tension walks with us day by day.

A healthy balance is often difficult to maintain. Sometimes we err on the side of our own pleasures. There are times we err when we give too much of ourselves to the world, forgetting to take care of ourselves and the people who are closest to us. Edward Kennedy lived this ambiguity, for good and for ill, in full view of a nation.

Few of us will have the impact on the world that Ted Kennedy had. He was thrown into a large family with a large fortune and large ambitions. These ambitions included a passion for justice for minorities, women, the poor, those living with mental challenges, the environment. History, through two assassins , dropped the responsibility of leading a large family on his shoulders. As far as I could see, he carried this burden of love with dignity, grace, and humor.

We do not all have to carry such a load, but we all live the mystery of life and love, we all have the responsibility to make an impact for the good on the small portion of the world that we inhabit and influence. In his speech last year before the Democratic convention, Kennedy spoke of health-care reform as the issue of his life and a new hope "that every American

12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response.
My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: natcoz

08-26-2009 @ 5:34pm

Mr. Kennedy certainly did have an interesting life. I wish him the best as he moves on to what lies ahead.

Since his speech, mentioned above, brought up the issue of health care reform, and since the power of ideas live on, having an impact well after our death, I think it necessary to challenge an idea presented in Mr. Kennedy's speech.

Although we want the best for our fellow man, and although we should care for those less fortunate than ourselves, medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition - even a life threatening one - does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the "greater good."

What is a right? The concept of a right defines freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. It is contradictory to claim that a person has a right to a good or service that requires, for its fulfillment, the violation of someone else's rights. If the exercise of a patient's so-called "right" to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part.

In reality, these types of so-called "rights" are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims of humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state. The fact that some physicians may willingly participate in their own enslavement does not alter this fact.

When politicians say that healthcare must be formed into a mold of their own design, they are admitting their inability to persuade MDs to use their plan voluntarily. Who will provide the care and carry out the directives of any of the proposed healthcare plans? That coverage would be "universal" is touted, but the fact that there are a finite number of physicians is never mentioned.

It is a fact that the number of physicians has not kept pace with the increase in population. Yet this is not for lack of people willing to work as doctors. Even today, there are many more applicants to medical school than can be placed in the limited number of slots. Government rules and the abuse of government power by special interest groups such as the AMA are responsible for the mismatch between doctors and the population requesting services. The AMA and specialty groups use government, for instance, to restrict doctors in one state from practicing in another. No such arbitrary rule applies to nurses; nor should they apply to physicians.

by: xfree9

08-26-2009 @ 6:20pm

While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog), I must say, very well said. Even those who disagree with you will likely understand what you wrote and be able to comprehend your position (which I share). Kudos!

by: natcoz

08-26-2009 @ 5:34pm

Mr. Kennedy certainly did have an interesting life. I wish him the best as he moves on to what lies ahead.

Since his speech, mentioned above, brought up the issue of health care reform, and since the power of ideas live on, having an impact well after our death, I think it necessary to challenge an idea presented in Mr. Kennedy's speech.

Although we want the best for our fellow man, and although we should care for those less fortunate than ourselves, medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition - even a life threatening one - does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the "greater good."

What is a right? The concept of a right defines freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. It is contradictory to claim that a person has a right to a good or service that requires, for its fulfillment, the violation of someone else's rights. If the exercise of a patient's so-called "right" to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part.

In reality, these types of so-called "rights" are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims of humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state. The fact that some physicians may willingly participate in their own enslavement does not alter this fact.

When politicians say that healthcare must be formed into a mold of their own design, they are admitting their inability to persuade MDs to use their plan voluntarily. Who will provide the care and carry out the directives of any of the proposed healthcare plans? That coverage would be "universal" is touted, but the fact that there are a finite number of physicians is never mentioned.

It is a fact that the number of physicians has not kept pace with the increase in population. Yet this is not for lack of people willing to work as doctors. Even today, there are many more applicants to medical school than can be placed in the limited number of slots. Government rules and the abuse of government power by special interest groups such as the AMA are responsible for the mismatch between doctors and the population requesting services. The AMA and specialty groups use government, for instance, to restrict doctors in one state from practicing in another. No such arbitrary rule applies to nurses; nor should they apply to physicians.

by: xfree9

08-26-2009 @ 6:20pm

While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog), I must say, very well said. Even those who disagree with you will likely understand what you wrote and be able to comprehend your position (which I share). Kudos!

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 12:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response. Seems to be disrespectful, like getting into an argument at a funeral.

My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 12:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 12:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response. Seems to be disrespectful, like getting into an argument at a funeral.

My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 12:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response.
My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: natcoz

08-26-2009 @ 5:34pm

Mr. Kennedy certainly did have an interesting life. I wish him the best as he moves on to what lies ahead.

Since his speech, mentioned above, brought up the issue of health care reform, and since the power of ideas live on, having an impact well after our death, I think it necessary to challenge an idea presented in Mr. Kennedy's speech.

Although we want the best for our fellow man, and although we should care for those less fortunate than ourselves, medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition - even a life threatening one - does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the "greater good."

What is a right? The concept of a right defines freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. It is contradictory to claim that a person has a right to a good or service that requires, for its fulfillment, the violation of someone else's rights. If the exercise of a patient's so-called "right" to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part.

In reality, these types of so-called "rights" are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims of humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state. The fact that some physicians may willingly participate in their own enslavement does not alter this fact.

When politicians say that healthcare must be formed into a mold of their own design, they are admitting their inability to persuade MDs to use their plan voluntarily. Who will provide the care and carry out the directives of any of the proposed healthcare plans? That coverage would be "universal" is touted, but the fact that there are a finite number of physicians is never mentioned.

It is a fact that the number of physicians has not kept pace with the increase in population. Yet this is not for lack of people willing to work as doctors. Even today, there are many more applicants to medical school than can be placed in the limited number of slots. Government rules and the abuse of government power by special interest groups such as the AMA are responsible for the mismatch between doctors and the population requesting services. The AMA and specialty groups use government, for instance, to restrict doctors in one state from practicing in another. No such arbitrary rule applies to nurses; nor should they apply to physicians.

by: natcoz

08-26-2009 @ 5:34pm

Mr. Kennedy certainly did have an interesting life. I wish him the best as he moves on to what lies ahead.

Since his speech, mentioned above, brought up the issue of health care reform, and since the power of ideas live on, having an impact well after our death, I think it necessary to challenge an idea presented in Mr. Kennedy's speech.

Although we want the best for our fellow man, and although we should care for those less fortunate than ourselves, medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition - even a life threatening one - does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the "greater good."

What is a right? The concept of a right defines freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. It is contradictory to claim that a person has a right to a good or service that requires, for its fulfillment, the violation of someone else's rights. If the exercise of a patient's so-called "right" to healthcare imposes obligations on taxpayers to pay for it and healthcare practitioners to provide it, then it is not a right, but an attempt to enslave one part of the population for the benefit of another part.

In reality, these types of so-called "rights" are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims of humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state. The fact that some physicians may willingly participate in their own enslavement does not alter this fact.

When politicians say that healthcare must be formed into a mold of their own design, they are admitting their inability to persuade MDs to use their plan voluntarily. Who will provide the care and carry out the directives of any of the proposed healthcare plans? That coverage would be "universal" is touted, but the fact that there are a finite number of physicians is never mentioned.

It is a fact that the number of physicians has not kept pace with the increase in population. Yet this is not for lack of people willing to work as doctors. Even today, there are many more applicants to medical school than can be placed in the limited number of slots. Government rules and the abuse of government power by special interest groups such as the AMA are responsible for the mismatch between doctors and the population requesting services. The AMA and specialty groups use government, for instance, to restrict doctors in one state from practicing in another. No such arbitrary rule applies to nurses; nor should they apply to physicians.

by: xfree9

08-26-2009 @ 6:20pm

While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog), I must say, very well said. Even those who disagree with you will likely understand what you wrote and be able to comprehend your position (which I share). Kudos!

by: xfree9

08-26-2009 @ 6:20pm

While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog), I must say, very well said. Even those who disagree with you will likely understand what you wrote and be able to comprehend your position (which I share). Kudos!

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 12:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response. Seems to be disrespectful, like getting into an argument at a funeral.

My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 12:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response. Seems to be disrespectful, like getting into an argument at a funeral.

My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 12:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 12:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response.
My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: jdquest

08-27-2009 @ 2:07pm

"While I'm not sure this would be my first choice of commenting on health care (since there are plenty of other essays to respond to on this blog),"

I agree with this part of your response.
My prayers are with the Kennedy family at this time.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.

by: Ngchen

08-27-2009 @ 2:55pm

I disagree with the notion that health-care is not a right. Someone with a treatable life-threatening illness IMHO has the right not to any specific doctor, but to a doctor somewhere. Sure, health-care is an economic item that at times is a necessity like food, clean water, and so forth. But any reasonable society should be structured in a way where those who work should be able to afford basic care, just like those who work should be able to afford basic food. Societies that cannot provide basic food to those who work, become unstable very quickly, not to mention are inhumane.

(The qualifier "basic" refers to food that one can live off of and be healthy, it obviously does not include lobster dinners and the like. It could be that part of our current health-care problem lies with government mandating that providers only provide lobster-dinner levels of care; the end result is that people get no care at all when they cannot afford the proverbial lobster dinner.)

Let us not forget how one reason why Sodom went down was arrogant, uncaring wealth. A common misconception is that the Bible somehow supports "rugged-individualism." The ancient gleaning system was mandated by law, and landowners did not have the option of not participating. OTOH, in the NT the apostles pooled their resources on a voluntary basis.

So how should we care for those less fortunate? As another poster noted, it's unfortunate how the debate has wound up being primarily about some sort of "public option" when there are so many other facets being ignored. Maybe parts of the system are overregulated, and maybe parts are underregulated. Maybe going to a single-payer system works, maybe it won't, and so forth.