July 9, 2012 issue
Health law and justice
We should consider health care a human right
The June 28 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the U.S. health-care reform law answered a narrow legal question: How much power does the Constitution grant to the federal government? But the future of health care in the United States depends upon the answers to broad moral questions: Is health care a human right? Should justice and compassion be the guiding principles in efforts to reform a system that discriminates against the poor and uninsured?
People of faith are among those who say the answer to both questions is yes.
The Affordable Care Act, though it lacks the efficiency of a single-payer system (“Medicare for all”) that works well in Canada, should add tens of millions of people to the rolls of the insured, moving the U.S. closer to the goal of universal coverage.
Mennonites have advocated for several provisions of the Affordable Care Act. A list of health-care principles adopted by Mennonite Church USA in 2007 called for eliminating financial and health status as barriers to health-care access. The newly upheld law moves toward these goals by expanding Medicaid coverage, subsidizing insurance for the poor and preventing insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
The Affordable Care Act aims to improve a bad situation — a health-care system plagued by waste and inefficiency. The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that uses profit-driven private insurance to fund its health care. We pay more but get less. The U.S. spends $8,000 per person on health care annually — more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized world — but performs poorly compared to other rich nations on life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates.
Poor health outcomes — shorter lives, infant deaths, illnesses due to failure to immunize — are just one form of injustice in the current system. Another is the rationing of care based on income and employment. Those who can’t afford insurance forgo treatment. An estimated 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack insurance and can’t pay for needed care.
The suffering that results from a lack of adequate care places health-care access squarely in the category of a fundamental right. We are responsible — collectively as a nation and individually as people of faith — to uphold this right. Caring for the sick is an act of obedience to God; ensuring that conditions exist in which the sick will be cared for is a duty of the state. The prophet Ezekiel (34:4) cited inattention to health care in an indictment of Israel’s leaders: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured.”
A modern prophet, Martin Luther King Jr., declared: “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” A rich nation with 50 million uninsured has a human-rights problem. The law that has passed a legal test represents progress toward justice.
Comments
-
Thank you, Paul. I would like to explain two small parts of the Act which have changed our health-care life (husband had a double lung transplant 18 years ago). As of January 1, 2011, the lifetime cap on insurance payments is gone, outlawed. I know a lot of folks don't even know this, but there used to be a cap on what the insurance company had to pay over your lifetime, regardless of how long they had covered you or how much you paid in premiums. In addition, another provision which will soon be implemented is the one that outlaws refusal of coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Pre-existing condition exclusion for children was outlawed the day the President signed the bill.
In easier to understand, more personal terms, before January 1, 2011, had Blue Cross paid its $1.5 million lifetime cap (not unusual in a transplant situation), we could have lost our insurance coverage. Once we lost it, we would not have been able to buy other insurance because of Cliff's pre-existing condition. Take a look at all the little parts; believe me, there's a lot of good things which make this Act one of the most exciting and positive changes in the way health care is provided in many a decade. Thank you, President Obama, for your hard work and persistence in getting this done.
-
Debra, you're right. As you put it, "Take a look at the little parts (of the Affordable Care Act) . . . there's a lot of good things (there)."
In my congregation, I have heard similar comments (although not as compelling as your story). Parents of young adults are very grateful that their children can continue on the family's health plan. In this economy, without that option many more young adults would be without insurance.
And thank you, Paul, for including in your editorial a reference to the health care rationing that is such a significant part of our system when insurance companies make the rules and coverage depends so heavily on securing certain kinds of employment.
-
So much wrong this, but where to start?
"The Affordable Care Act, though it lacks the efficiency of a single-payer system..." - Since when is a govt. system ever efficient? Medicare paying far less than services are worth? That's justice and efficiency?
"Another is the rationing of care based on income and employment. Those who can’t afford insurance forgo treatment." - So those (generally middle class)in a single payer system who get denied needed care that they likely could have afforded in a private insurance system ought to acknowledge the overall justice? Where is their justice? A single payer system will not ration our care? We better get drugs legalized quick so citizens can people can believe such bunk....
"Caring for the sick is an act of obedience to God; ensuring that conditions exist in which the sick will be cared for is a duty of the state." - The first is an absolute amen, hence Mennonite retirement homes and systems for mentally disabled. The second is a personal opinion: where does God say it is the duty of the state to have health insurance? We already insure the 'sick will be cared for' through mandatory service at hospital ER.
"A modern prophet, Martin Luther King Jr., declared..." - Now Martin Luther King is a modern prophet? I have never seen such high praise for any other modern figure in MWR, not the reverend Billy Graham or any others responsible for saving countless souls from sin and eternal damnation. Who decides who is a modern prophet?
-
BJW, a standard measure of efficiency in the health care system is to ask, "What share of dollars spent on health insurance coverage actually is used to provide medical care?"
Medicare is far more efficient than the private insurance providers. It spends around 95% of the dollars it receives on medical care. Private health insurance companies spend far less - usually in the range of 2/3 of the health insurance premiums they receive.
Under the AHA, private insurers will be required to limit their overhead and profit to 20 percent, which will be an improvement over their existing practices but still far below Medicare's 5 percent.
-
BJW, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I suspect you've never had a life-threatening, incredibly expensive or chronic illness/accident experience. I pray you never do. The facts, however, remain. At some time in your life, you or a family member for whom you are responsible will require medical care. Think about it.
-
BJW, thank you for your comments. You are right, there is so much wrong with this editorial it is difficult to know were to start.
Paul, if ACA is so efficient and affordable, why did not the wisdom thinkers of MC USA implement this in their Mennonite Mutual Aid program for all their church members and family living in their home?
Paul, you state “An estimated 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack insurance and can’t pay for needed care”. It is also true that millions die annually who had health insurance.
Paul, will ACA extend the life of the unborn in the womb who today are scheduled for an abortion? If not, does ACA pay for abortion costs?
Paul, you say there are currently 50 million people who are uninsured falsely implying they are deprived of any healthcare needs. Who is expected to pay the tax/insurance premiums under ACA for the 50 million currently uninsured?
Paul, you point to healthcare in Canada. What I hear from different people is the long waiting time from the time you are determined to need surgery until you actually are admitted for surgery. There is no urgency in their system and some come to the US for their emergency treatment. I learned recently that an individual with a heart murmur had a consultation to determine what should be done. An appointment was made for the following week to have an Echo Cardiogram performed. In the discussion that followed, the consulting physician stated that an appointment for the Echo Cardiogram in Canada would be a wait of about six months. So much for efficiency in the healthcare program in Canada.
Paul, you say that healthcare is a human right. Really, when did that become a human right? Does that also apply to people in Haiti, Pakistan, Iran and the Gypsy people in Eastern Europe.
In her Supreme Court nomination process, Elena Kagan lied on several occasions regarding her involvement with the Obama Administration on this legislation. Under proper court procedure, she should have reclused herself from the decision. Her nomination to the Supreme Court by Obama was to have her positioned in the event ACA was sent to the high court for review. What we have learned is that politics and fraud has reached the SCOTUS.
Why should we have confidence in ACA after the recent Fast and Furious episode holding AG Eric Holder in contempt followed by Obama’s Executive Order supporting him? What happened to the transparency Obama promised the American people?
-
Dale has raised the critical choice for us who follow the Human One: which is more important, not having to wait a bit for medical tests or not having our neighbors able to access health care except through an ER?
As he suggests, it also is interesting to compare health care systems. Using the World Health Organization (WHO) method, the USA has the 37th best system. Canada is 30th, Slovenia (an example of eastern Europe) is 38th, Iran 93rd, Pakistan 122nd, adn Haiti 138th.
-
Berry - You dismiss Dale but it does raise an interesting and valid point. You say "which is more important, not having to wait a bit for medical tests or not having our neighbors able to access health care except through an ER?" which takes a number of jumps. One you acknowledge that they receive unpaid care through the ER - charitable in its own right. You also assume we might just 'wait a bit' -- but if that wait were for life saving surgery in 2022 that you would have gotten quickly ten years prior it is understandable that citizens may not be so happy - correct?
Is there not an injustice in someone who could have had quick access to healthcare and worked hard for that ability under our current insurance programs, to have that then denied by the new system? You are taking something tangible from them. Or can injustice only occur to the bottom/lower? The middle class will really be the issue here - they will lose their better coverage and will pay to subsidize their neighbor directly (they do already indirectly). The truly rich will always have great care. Under no circumstance do I see a plan whereby the poor will be able to afford their own coverage i.e have less poor individuals. Why not? And if we cannot afford the middle class level of care for them now, what will change to allow that to happen in the future (rationing, lifetime limits, etc anyone)? I see nothing in the bill that addresses that directly - all smoke and mirrors.
Debra - I have read many of your posts and have a feel for what you have gone through and are going through. I believe it is a true miracle and inspiration that your husband is alive and well. My prayers are with you.
-
Yup, I freely agree there are trade-offs, some of which you (BJW) have described.
Given who we follow, and the importance He placed on health and healing, we shouldn't pretend this is a close call. That's why Paul spoke a resounding "yes" in his editorial to the Supreme Court's decision.
Is this paradise, then? Hardly. But we're bringing many more payers into the system, thus improving the mechanism for sharing the load, and will be providing more cost-effective and humane health care to those left out of the current system.
Will we middle-class folk need to made some adjustments in what we feel entitled to receive? Yes. But this is among the least of such; the big ones are rooted in bank fraud, short-term thinking by our corporate overlords, imperial ambitions overseas, and fiscal irresponsibility by our legislators.
-
Dale, to answer your questions:
-
Mennonite Church USA does not have the power to enforce nor the financial resources to implement anything like the ACA.
-
My point is that some people die unnecessarily because they lack insurance and therefore forgo treatment. You’re right, of course, that others die despite receiving treatment. But the fact that “sometimes you die anyway” is no argument for avoiding medical care.
-
The ACA will not impact the availability of abortion. Some insurance plans cover abortions and some don’t, and that will continue.
-
I did not imply that the uninsured get no health care. Currently, when an uninsured person gets emergency care, we all pay. This is the “free-rider” problem, which the ACA helps to solve.
-
Canada spends about half what the U.S. spends (as a percentage of GDP) on health care and gets better outcomes. This is one of several measures of greater efficiency.
-
Rights are universal, “endowed by our Creator,” to use the famous phrase. Yes, they apply to the people you mention.
-
“Fast and Furious” isn't relevant to the ACA discussion.
-
-
Paul, thank you for your response. My point is, who in this administration can you trust and when? If they can't be trusted with the truth on Fast & Furious, then I really don't trust them on ACA. If one is only partially trustworthy, one really is not trustworthy at all.
-
Paul, another point in your comments to me that needs further clarification. You state “Mennonite Church USA does not have the power to enforce nor the financial resources to implement anything like the ACA.” Then you also state ”Rights (healthcare) are universal, “endowed by our Creator,” These statements are conflicting. If these are rights endowed by our Creator as you say, then MC USA is Biblically compelled to implement these rights among all its members. In other words, you would have us believe Creator God has written somewhere in the Bible that He expects civil governments of the world to implement these ACA rights and not the family of God.
Further, you state MC USA does not have the financial resources to implement an ACA type program. You are admitting that ACA is a costly program. Therefore, members of MC USA will be paying a greater amount under ACA than under a similar MC USA universal program in MMA that would meet whatever Creator ACA requirements you have identified somewhere in scripture.
-
It is futile to argue with Mr. Welty and BJW because they seem not to be able to think rationally. Mr. Schrag and Mr. Friesen provide some thought-provoking facts, but facts are powerless in the face of partisan talking points.
Instead, we should give Mr. Welty and BJW a simple essay question to work on: “The nation of Israel has a health care system that is comprehensive, compulsory, universal, government-run, government-funded, and socialistic. In 600 words or less, explain why this system does not work, and why Israel should change over to the superior US model.”
-
my vision is also blurred with Reason I also still need a snake on a stick Please be patient with us Lord.
-
your prophet is confusing me. can you help clarify?
"To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing."
"Christianity, however, survived because it appeared to be the result of a trend in the social order or in the historical cycle of the human race. Forces have been known to delay trends but very few have stopped them. The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced? "
i have believed many things I now regret and I do not claim that prophets are perfect. yet, the above troubles me, especially when spoken by one you call a prophet (assuming you mean a prophet of the Lord, Jesus Christ).
-
I can guarantee anyone concerned that the system in Canada works. It may be slow, but it has guaranteed people in my immediate family life and comfort in the face of nearly hopeless medical conditions without destroying their hope of future financial solvency. This despite a year or more of missed work because of impending medical examinations, tests, and treatments. This despite applying to American hospitals and the American healthcare system for second opinions.
This would not be the case in the United States. I know too many who have worked their entire lives only to have illness take away everything they have earned, leaving them in debt so deep that hope of retirement is destroyed; that any thought of owning a home, of building credit, of leaving a hard earned inheritance to children becomes a forlorn fantasy.
Thank you, Mr. Obama and the DEMOCRATIC congress for making pre-existing conditions a concern of the past.
Thank you, Mr. Obama and the DEMOCRATIC congress for making health care understood as an inseparable part of the right to life.
Thank you, Mr. Obama and the DEMOCRATIC congress for affirming that an individual should not be condemned to financial death for an expensive illness.
Thank you, Mr. Roberts for affirming the necessity of health care reform and preserving the constitutional tools to accomplish it.
Thank you, Ms. Bender, Mr. Friesen, and Mr. Schrag for recognizing these all important factors in health care reform.
To those who do not understand health care as being among the fundamental components of the Right to Life, and who instead choose to play petty politics with the matter, I can only extend my bewilderment.
-
JPR, you're more than welcome. It's always reassuring to me to understand that others who have been involved in a serious health situation "get it." Even though it's sometimes difficult to read or hear the comments of those who haven't walked in our shoes, we must keep telling our stories - I'm convinced it's the only way change will come. Know that my thoughts and prayers are with you and yours.
-
Well one thing is certain - time will certainly sort out right from wrong. I am struck by the willful ignorance of financial and political realities of those who support ACA likely as much as they like JPR "..can only extend my bewilderment" at those of us who cannot fathom why anyone would think it will work.
A few points that are worth mentioning: the population of Israel is 7.6 million and Canada is 35 million citizens. Advocates of single payer systems fail to mention that it has never functioned in a nation of 300+ million citizens across diverse ethnic, economic and societal backgrounds. If it were states doing it on their own - I would be in much more support - and it would likely work much better. It also has the side benefit that citizens could leave that state if you didn't like the health care system (or move to it if you liked it).
Aside from the continued veiled insults and patronizing comments, those of us who do not support ACA do not do so out of hate, fear or some sort of callous disposition. I (and others)do not feel that it is moral to create a system that cannot function, to enact legislation that cannot be paid for. Good intentions do not good policy make. This act does nothing to address the affordability of our current system, and if anything sets up the entire private employer paid system to fail......which is probably the long term plan. Those advocating a single payer may not have long to wait.
While we will all probably continue talking past each other, I think it is worth mentioning that there is morality and ethics behind those who advocate for a system that can be sustained financially and that does not forcibly confiscate from one neighbor to pay for another neighbor. If we really believe in such confiscation, why does the church not issue a mandatory levy on all members? Or are some of us hiding behind the convenient veil of politics and civil religion, letting the state do our religious bidding? Talk about a complete reversal of Mennonite theology.....
-
Thank you BJW for the following: “If we really believe in such confiscation, why does the church not issue a mandatory levy on all members?” Further, while we may be talking past each other at this level, I am confident there are many others in the pew level who will agree with us but are fearful of expressing themselves because of bully individuals.
To R.E. If the nation of Israel can make it work as you say, why please tell me in 600 words of less why MC USA is unable to make it work. Hopefully you can provide better answers than Paul did on this question.
It is very obvious that much fraud, waste, secrecy, constitutional violations and deceit exists in the current administration and Democrats in Congress. ACA is a huge jump in government growth. As government grows, all things previously mentioned grow accordingly. Apparently this is acceptable to the New Age Anabaptist religious left.
-
BJW: Thanks for your input. You did forget to mention that obama and his minions are trying to force the Catholic Church to go against some of its Deeply held Biblical Beliefs on Abortion and Birth Control. Everybody should read Martin Niemöller's
First They (Nazi's) For: First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. The Churches in this country need to speak up now or forever hold your peace. The Liberals, Marxists, and Socialists will be at your doorstep much sooner than you think! -
BJW, if your congregation is like mine, it includes subsidized individuals who suffer from Downs Syndrome or another mental incapacity; elderly individuals whose Social Securities benefits exceed what they contributed during their working years or who have outlived their savings and now live in nursing homes with the support of Medicaid; elderly individuals who generally pay all of their own costs but have the misfortune of needing to use Medicare-funded medical care much more frequently than is the norm; cancer survivors who received life-saving treatment paid for by Medicaid; and younger families that include children who eat reduced-price lunch in school and include a parent who is drawing unemployment insurance.
Do you remind these individuals that they are living off money “forcibly confiscated” from the more fortunate members of your congregation? Or do you use such language only when speaking anonymously?
And do you also find opportunity to remind those in your congregation who own vacation homes (or yachts or RVs) that their enjoyment of an interest deduction on up to $1 million of related debt also has been “forcibly confiscated” from the less affluent members?
-
Berry - I do not remind church members of such things. For one thing it is not my place. But to the extent that the money used for those services is collected essentially at the barrel of a gun, I stand by my statement. Those funds are not voluntarily given to the IRS. Even to this day I do not see anybody, Warren Buffett included, giving amounts more than they owe to the IRS. Lets call a spade a spade.
As for voluntary and biblical tithing, I absolutely support it and would implore anyone who is hoarding money at the expenses of those around them to look at such a situation biblically. Money given voluntarily is often used more frugally and for the intended purposes of the giver and quite frankly, for actual Christ centered causes. It is not enough to pay our taxes and feel we have done our duty.
But here Berry is the rub - the more taxes you or I pay the less we have to give to the church and to charities. The more we allow the government to intrude into our financial lives the less room there is for God. It is not enough to somehow claim that government work is Gods work - it is not. Europe has demonstrated this amply over the last few decades. How can a young family paying 30% federal, 10% state and associated real estate taxes afford to tithe the church 10% ? You know the answer as well as I. This is where we are theologically lost.......
I also vehemently deny the patronizing nature of your comments to insinuate those of us who do not support big brother programs run by uncle sam are somehow less compassionate or loving of our neighbor. Its a deliberate falsehood meant to pigeon hole those you argue against.
-
BJW, here in conservative Lancaster PA, people of all stripes carry one another's burdens by giving to charity, contributing to our congregations, engaging in quiet acts of mercy, and cheerfully paying taxes that benefit the common good. This is all part of a witness to our Lord's love for each and every one of us, but especially for those who have little, such as the widowns, the orphans, and the immigrants.
But for 30 years now, the airwaves have been filled by shrill voices who say we can have public uplift or we can have private compassion but we can not have both.
It is a false choice and a destructive teaching.
BJW, do you denounce medical research, public universities, infrastructure projects or technology development because they take money out of our pockets and are publicly funded? I noticed you didn't bother to comment on the huge public expenditures that benefit the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected. Are you a libertarian across the board or only when it comes to the poor and needy?
I ask because I can not comprehend your obvious enthusiasm for proclaiming that public investment in human care and development (such as the sheltered workshop for mentially disabled adults where I work) is extortion. But maybe you are honoring a deeper principle that you haven't yet disclosed.
-
A great number of the comments do not enhance understanding, but instead are blatantly partisan and/or frankly irrational. I ignore these and focus on the issues that I raised.
1)MC USA is a small private organization. Repeatedly inquiring as to why MC USA is unable to create a universal healthcare plan like in Israel makes no sense. The topic of discussion is healthcare for everyone. The question is, what kind of a system will be best, be it a single payer system (Canada) or a compulsory private insurance arrangement (Switzerland), or something else. Small private organizations may voice opinions about national healthcare, but they don’t actually do the healthcare. It is absurd: how can MC USA, (or the Elks, or the Crochet Guild of America!) run a medical system? The reasons why a non-coercive system does not work on the small-association level is described in http://www.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2006Mar/ .
2)A questioner flatly asserts that a system that works in a small nation (Israel) cannot work in a large nation. That’s not an answer - that’s an unsupported statement.
I feel sad for the Mennonites. When terms like “Nazis” and the president’s “minions” start to creep into the conversation, then sensible readers will bail out. No progress can be made.
-
R.E.: You misunderstood my post. I did not call the obama Administration "Nazi". I was using Martin Niemöller to make a point. The Government is NOW telling the Catholic Church what its Beliefs MUST be. How long will it be before It tells the Mennonites and other Christian Curches what their Beliefs MUST be. Take a Stand NOW or it will be too late
-
"A questioner flatly asserts that a system that works in a small nation (Israel) cannot work in a large nation. That’s not an answer - that’s an unsupported statement." - R.E
If R.E can show me any compelling evidence that the U.S government can run a healthcare system for 300+ million people I'd love to see it. The U.S government has not effectively run any program for 300 million people. It is complete conjecture and fantasy on the part of progressive statist politicians. I see no benefit to the federal government running healthcare instead of the states. My point is the only place it has worked in the world are the size of our states, not our entire country, and generally are a rather homogeneous population with higher levels of income. It is a false comparison to say that 'it works for Sweden' thus it must work for the U.S. It might work for California perhaps, but even there we are already having entire towns and cities going bankrupt.
To Berry - I do not 'denounce' any of the things you mention, but I do question if it would not be more wise to have private universities, medical systems, school systems etc. Libertarian is a fine word to use - but I am not sure which of the 'huge public expenditures' I support that are for the 'wealthy, powerful and well connected". I do not view people who question whether more and more government has actually helped our society as 'shrill voices' or 'destructive'. I think they ask a very important question that we all should deeply consider if we care about those around us.
I am also very sure I never used the word 'extortion' to describe your job or the way it is funded. I used the term 'coercive' - and if you can prove how taxes are not coercive I would love to hear it.
Church leaders and members should not be hiding behind the veil of government to do work that we ought to be doing on our own. We should not rely on forced requisition of funds to serve our purposes at the expense of others. In the end we end up being co-opted by the system and it works to ends we never envisioned or intended. Tithing and taxing are very very different things and should never be confused. So it is with government - a wise man in 1797 said “Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.” - George Washington himself.
-
And BJW, what work have YOU done to ensure everyone has healthcare? (That, if brought to a larger scale where others do the same could work?)
It's easy to say we can't afford it. Affording something is a question of priorities. We sure could afford to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and any number of wars. We sure seem to afford a bloated defense budget.
It's easy to say that the US is different from Sweeden, Canada, France, Israel, etc., all of which are places where single payer has succeeded. It's also noteworthy that Sweeden, Canada, France, Israel, etc., are all different from each other. Why do you have so little faith in the US in this matter? Or are you just making excuses and conjecture yourself?
-
Reality is far more nuanced than you theory describes it, BJW. When government is illegitimate, then (as you put it) "the money used for (public) services is collected essentially at the barrel of a gun." And when government is legitimate, then taxes are paid cheerfully because the services funded are for the common good.
Throughout the '50s and '60s, most Republicans and most Democrats held this positive view of the matter. My Republican parents did, for example.
But beginning in the '70s and then full-speed thoughout the '80s and ever since, it has been the Republican strategy to delegitimate government. As Grover Norquist infamously put it: "I want to shrink government to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub."
Of course, there is much to criticize about government, and if public officials are not held accountable, all manner of corruption can take root. But accountability and good government has not been the Republican strategy. Instead, it has depicted government as irretrievably broken (except, that is, with regard to national defense). Republicans have prospered with this strategy, as have multi-national corporations, Wall Street banksters and the wealthy of every stripe. But as a society we have suffered as a result, and those among us with the fewest advantages have suffered especially.
It saddens me, BJW, when you bring these talking points into this forum dressed up as high-minded principles. And it distresses me when you report that the elderly, the sick and the disabled in your congregation bear the weight of your disapproval because their burdens have been made a bit lighter through our taxes.
No, you did not say that what we pay to help the common load is secured by extortion. What you said it that it is secured by coercion, the barrel of a gun, forcible confiscation. Those are words clearly meant to stigmatize and delegitimate that which some of us still regard as legitimate, even honorable.
-
It clearly is not advantageous on the boards of MWR to have any other opinion than the one being proffered in the article. That much I recognize. But is it necessary to call legitimate disagreeing positions "talking points" that I have "disapproval of the elderly"?
Your argument about legitimate government makes sense, so then you must also realize that many fellow citizens do not regard this extra govt. spending ever since "the Great Society" as legitimate. A look at the following table will show that govt. as a share of GDP is matching the highest levels in the U.S ever. Counter to your argument we are expanding at a steady and constant rate. What has it done for us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.png
This argument that 'this' is more Christian than 'that' is very difficult to clarify and quantify. I am simply arguing that certain things don't work economically and socially - the laws of physics are not easily bent nor are the laws of finances and economics.
“We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart
-
Thanks, Paul, for the compassionate article.
The most curious thing to me in this discussion so far is that none of the naysayers (to ACA) have addressed one of the last fundamentally-important statements which Paul made. "A rich nation with 50 million uninsured has a human-rights problem."
Smaller government, with that fact in mind, would only serve to exacerbate that phenomenon.
Comment on the article Health law and justice
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download