RSS Feed
Don't Use God to Inflame an Already Overwrought Debate
Health-care reform is an economic, political and medical issue. But On Faith panelist and evangelical leader Jim Wallis says it's also a "deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue." Do you agree? Why or why not?
The debate about health care is already contentious enough without bringing God into it, at least the way we usually do so. I mean, we have people calling each other Nazis and Brown Shirts because they happen to disagree with each other about this issue. Do we really need to invoke God, whose name when invoked in public policy debate, generally adds more heat than light to any issue?
It's not that I disagree about the deeply theological, Biblical or moral underpinnings of the issue of health care. In fact, one need go no further than Deuteronomy 4:15 which commands us to take good care of ourselves - to do so as a community, to begin making a religious case for the kind of universal health care which Rev. Wallis desires. What a surprise! Mr. Wallis can find Biblical support for the politics in which he believes.
It's not that I am cynical about his sincerity, but I know just as many Righties who find verses to defend their vision of what health care should look in America. So rather than simply hurling proof texts at one another, I wonder, how our various faiths could raise the level of this important debate. How might our understanding of what God wants shed some new light on an argument which is serving very few people but the fiercest ideologues on each side of this issue?
As a Jew, rooted in a system which is far more concerned with obligations than it is with rights, but always aware of both, I want to see a real conversation about the balance between health care as a human right and the obligations that should be born by all people who get that care. In Judaism, even those things which we consider God-given rights are accompanied by real obligations.
So, for example, should the same kind universal health care coverage be extended to those who smoke as would be to those who don't? How about to those who are overweight, like me? Are we entitled by God, as invoked by Mr. Wallis, to the same care as those who manage their weights more successfully? Or have we abrogated our own rights by failing to live up to other equally Biblical obligations about care of our bodies?
What about the fact that no matter how much we choose to universalize health care, we must admit that ours is no less a rationing of a limited commodity than is the current process, we just like our version better. But who says that it is necessarily more ethical?
For example, the Talmud teaches that if two men are stuck in a boat and only one of them has a flask of water, and it is clear that it will not sustain them both, the owner of the flask is not obligated to share his water. The ensuing debate about that claim is complex, but the basic assumption remains throughout -- what we contribute is a factor in determining that which we are entitled to receive when a limited resource must be rationed.
Using religious ideas to ask these kinds of questions, questions which admit the complexity of the issue and guide us through it, rather than flogging our faiths for political-theological points, would be a worthy use of faith in this debate. Anything less nuanced, and we should keep our ideas about God and health care to ourselves.
By
Brad Hirschfield
|
August 18, 2009; 2:49 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: The Dharma of Health-Care Reform |
Next: Looking for a Higher Authority on Health Care
Posted by: phillipecopeland | August 25, 2009 7:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"As it currently stands, the healthcare industry is a for-profit business. It means that in order to turn a profit, people have to get sick and continue to get sick...Yes, this is a moral issue, a Biblical issue and a theological issue. It is so because it has to do with making profit from, and in spite of the suffering and misery of others, and actively engaging in tactics to maintain the practice."
MGT2 has hit the nail on the head here.
How can people of good conscience ignore the fact that our current health-care industry can maintain (and increase) its profits only through continued illness and injury? If Americans don't keep getting sick (e.g., because they engage in wellness programs), the industry doesn't make money.
Literally, it goes against the interests of the health-care industry for Americans to become healthier. Against that backdrop, what hope is there that genuine reform can even be visualized, much less enacted?
Posted by: kjohnson3 | August 23, 2009 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I mean, I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but when people scream 'Antichrist' or whatever at Obama... Somehow I don't think this derives from any sort of critique of his macroeconomic policy.
Posted by: Paganplace | August 19, 2009 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I suspect it's a little late to not bring 'God' into the equation when people are screaming 'God will hold Obama to account' if they aren't forced to pay extra thousands a year to corporations for services corporations will just turn around and deny them, ...And those corporations sleep well those nights. :)
Posted by: Paganplace | August 19, 2009 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Jim Wallis
Health care reform is a moral imperative. As it currently stands, the healthcare industry is a for-profit business. It means that in order to turn a profit, people have to get sick and continue to get sick. It also means that those who get sick must be able to pay for their treatments or be denied care because the health care companies would not make "enough" money otherwise.
These companies are not interested in those without the ability to pay for health care. If they are challenged by reform to lower their prices, or, God forbid, to start treating the poor at a lower cost, that would be no good. That is why they are so aggressive in spreading misinformation to kill any reform. The current system suits them just fine.
It is not people that they care about. they do not care that a family loses a home to pay for mom's cancer treatment. They do not care that grandpa has to choose between eating dinner tonight or paying for his medication. They do not care that two young kids lost their dad at the age of 39 years because he could not afford to see a doctor and get early treatment for his cancer. They do not care about any of that; they just care about making a profit.
Yes, this is a moral issue, a Biblical issue and a theological issue. It is so because it has to do with making profit from, and in spite of the suffering and misery of others, and actively engaging in tactics to maintain the practice. This goes against every Judeo-Christian principle and people of faith ought to have the courage to say so.
Posted by: MGT2 | August 19, 2009 9:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm afraid it will debate for a long time.
Posted by: softwaresoda168 | August 18, 2009 10:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thoughtful, spiritual, educated ... why can't others arguing this issue comprehend and attempt to deal with the complexities, as the Rabbi suggests?
Posted by: DavidinCoarsegold | August 18, 2009 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Aw, shoot, Rabbi, I was hoping to get Jewish Charities to pay for my health care, if all else failed.
That is the real issue here, isn't it? Morality, schmorality, who can I get to pay for my health care?
Geesch!
Posted by: alltheroadrunnin | August 18, 2009 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I really appreciate your emphasizing that discourse on rights must include responsibilities as well. Health care coverage based upon health behavior is an interesting argument, though I think we should acknowledge that health behavior is more complex that simply people making bad or good choices (cigarette smoking is an addiction for instance). I also agree that we should avoid simplistic moralizing when discussing complex policy issues like health care reform.
www.bahaithought.com