Healing America's Sick Soul

Once again some incentives to live a healthy life style and ways to pay for universal health care.

1. An added two dollar health insurance tax (or higher) on a pack of cigarettes. Ditto taxes on alcolholic beverages, the higher the alcohol content, the higher the tax. Ditto for any product shown to be unhealthy (e.g. guns, high caloric/fatty foods??)

2. Physicals akin to those required for life insurance- the overly obese will pay signficantly more Medicare and universal health insurance (unless the obesity is a caused by a medical condition).

3. No universal health care coverage for drivers driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or using cell phones while driving.

4. And no universal health coverage for drug addicts or for those having self-inflicted STDs.

CCNL:

"Universal health care? Yes indeed but there has to be incentives for living a healthy life style.
Bottom line: Those who live healthy life styles should not have to pay for the health care of those who don't!!!"

Bottom line: If you think that way, it should be pretty obvious that setting up the system so that wealthy people who poison us shouldn't be the ones we all pay to subsidize, just cause for insurance companies, there's a lot more to be made by doing colossally-expensive procedures to one rich cancer patient than by keeping the general population from needing to bankrupt themselves to pay for a cheaper version of that when they've already become sick or injured.

"Why do we even have this fiction of "health insurance" anyway (to an extent it is the odd circumstance of World War II)? Why do we not have a national system of medical care of the population, paid for by taxes the same way as everything else?"

I think it probably grew out of the now-mythical notion of doctors as basically private contractors who made house calls, actually.

Then again, I'm still waiting for the milkman to come back. :)

Tough Choices:

You said: As has been said before, if Obama's team can't run the Cash for Clunkers program--which currently is so mismanaged it is failing to reimburse the auto dealers--I certainly don't trust my fmaily's healthcare to them.

How do you know that the government cannot run "cash for clunkers"? Would you want them to simply hand out whatever checks the dealers demanded? One of the biggest charges to government is accountability. That means the government has to be able to know that the reiumbursements they make to dealers are legitimate. I don't think that the delay to date has been excessive. How fast does an average criminal trial take to schedule? And the Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. For many courts trials are being scheduled into the middle of next year already. Taking a couple of weeks to handle something like 750,000 individual transactions is not outrageous. If they don't have reimbursements comopleted within a month or so from submission, that might be cause for concern, but it takes time for the government to gear up on a new program...otherwise, Congress gets all up-tight about "lack of controls over spending". So, just chill a bit. It's working.

Pr Chris

It is interesting in the health care debate in this country, that people talk about who pays for insurance, the "public option" versus "private insurance", etc. But no one seems to ask: Why do we keep this system? How does the UK, Canada, Germany, etc. pay for the health care of their citizens?

For virtually every health care system except ours, the health services are funded through general revenues. In other words, they are paid for the same way as defense, the justice department, and every other government function: Through the national budget. Why do we even have this fiction of "health insurance" anyway (to an extent it is the odd circumstance of World War II)? Why do we not have a national system of medical care of the population, paid for by taxes the same way as everything else?

Health care should be the right of every citizen, just as every other societal good we make available. Why not put health care into our budget, and pay for it with our taxes?

Taxes are not evil: They are what we pay as members of society to make it function. The task for government is to tax as little as possible, but sufficient to carrying out its responsibilities under law. The goal of tax collection should be that it is designed to spread the tax burden as equably as possible. I would argue that progressive tax policies, that "to whom much is given, much should be required", should mean that the wealthiest members of our society, who have benefited greatly from the society should bear their fair share of the burden. The poor should pay an equal burden, which may be, in absolute terms, very little. Would not most of us be happy to accept a 10% or even 20% increase in taxes if it meant we had health care that could not be cancelled, that did not involve the nightmare of co-pays, deductibles, etc.? And that no matter what, I could get the care I needed--and so could my family? I sure would!

In terms of health care, we ought to support the training of those who want to go into medicine, especially those who want to go into primary care, so that they do not inherit a burden of debt, and so that veryone who needs to see a physician is able to. This would allow for the sort of preventative medicine that allows people to get help before their conditions destroy their lives, and become physically onerous and medically very expensive to treat.

Who should receive health care? This seems to be a debate, with some of our leaders arguing that not everyone deserves health care. Just this morning, Sen Hatch seemed to say that "why should we change things just for 15 million people? 85% are covered. That ought to be good enough." I would argue that the controlling concept should be the answer to the question: Who is my neighbor? I believe that the answer to this question at least encompasses those who live in my country. I believe ultimately it encompasses all people. My neighbor deserves care as much as I do.

Pr Chris

Next thing you know it's November. It's always time to give thanks for all the blessings of Liberty
http://twitpic.com/tag/november
There's a baby on the way and nothing is more important than babies. At least to me.

One of the many warnings on cigarette packs sold in Canada:

"WARNING

CIGARETTES CAUSE LUNG CANCER

85% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.
80% of lung cancer victims die within three years.

accompanied by a picture of a human lung detailing cancerous growths."

Universal health care? Yes indeed but there has to be incentives for living a healthy life style.

Bottom line: Those who live healthy life styles should not have to pay for the health care of those who don't!!!

There is something amoral about the current situation when the richest country in the world is willing to spend billions killing people in faraway lands but is unwilling or unable to provide adequate medical care for ALL its citizens here at home.
Posted by: robfield
==============
The trouble is in defining "adequate". Almost everyone wants "quality" and "affordable" care, but the two terms fight against each other. I myself feel that expensive treatments to the elderly at taxpayers' expense have to be restricted. And people involved in health care who have got used to getting fat at the expense of others need to be controlled.

If we do that, then we can have "reasonable" medical care for everyone at a cost which the nation can actually afford. Will that happen? It is anyone's guess at the moment.

Tried that for eight years. Didn't work. But it did prove to make things worse.

I think I know what the problem is: The "progressives" posting here keep talking as if Obama's plans--whatever they turn out to be finally--will actually work and actually provide good quality healthcare to those who are uninsured while simultaneously driving down America's skyrocketing healthcare costs. Thus, anyone who is opposed to those plans must also be opposed to proviidng uninsured people with decent healthcare and must also want to see healthcare costs continue to rise ... shame on us who disagree with Obama's medical magic! The fact is Obama and his fellow Democrats have NOT crafted any measures that will actually ahieve those combined goals. Perhaps they can have one or the other--universal coverage OR lower costs--but not both at the same time. THAT is why so many people are opposed to these plans. If you want to have more people covered within the American system, the solution should be to grow the economy and expand jobs while simultaneously REDUCING burdensome government regulation on free enterprise so that firms can hire more workers and give them better healthcare .. but ALL of the current proposals will do the opposite. As has been said before, if Obama's team can't run the Cash for Clunkers program--which currently is so mismanaged it is failing to reimburse the auto dealers--I certainly don't trust my fmaily's healthcare to them.

Jim Wallis,

Thank you for having the courage to expose yourself to the ire of the discompassionate, the irreligious, the selfish and the hateful, for the sake of the poor and unfortunate within our society, and say what any Bible-believing Christian, regardless of political persuasion, ought to say.

In this country, in this day, healthcare reform is a moral imperative politically, sociologically, theologically and Biblically. Ture Christians know that.

Today, that is the test of their religion, whether or not it is true accorging to James the apostle. Will they defend the widows and fatherless? Will they side with the poor against he rich? Or will they show favoritism for the "haves" over the "have-nots?" Will they shut up their bowels of compassion when they can afford to help?

We'll see.

Obama is showing that he is losing the battle fast when he resorts to use Religion as a way of convincing people.

The fact is that we have a good track history in being a compassionate society and religious organizations have been highly instrumental in helping the needy in our society.

When it comes to health care, we should look carefully at all the options and the odds that we will face with a monumental overhaul such as the one proposed that could be very detrimental to all of us and once instituted, we will not be able to backtrack.

The public option is not in our best interest. The federal government has proven to us to have a real bad track record in managing its current programs and here we are considering to extend it to cover the whole population.

Those that really need coverage represent 10% of the population and we can include these folks by correcting the problems that currently exist. But it appears that it is much to easy for our dear Congressmen to run and establish a monstruosity that have the guts to address what doesn't work.

Americans in great number will demand our freedom of choice and decision making and re-engineering our society is not palatable in this country nor is socialism.

Obama is a fool!!!

We have the right to practice the religious faith of our choice. Religious faiths and their ministers, such as Mr. Wallis, do NOT have the right to advocate Americans or their government on behalf of secular concerns.

To enact a public option without due consideration of the care, efficiency, and cost considerations for a nation already carrying its biggest deficit in history would be MORALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.

There is something amoral about the current situation when the richest country in the world is willing to spend billions killing people in faraway lands but is unwilling or unable to provide adequate medical care for ALL its citizens here at home.

Matthew 37-46:

"Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45 Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'"

How can a professed Christian can claim to follow the words of Christ and yet be outraged by the possibility that healthcare might somehow be given to more poor people, or non-citizens?

I sometimes hear the response: "Well, Jesus said 'Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s', as if that was some kind of proto-libertarian manifesto. Do you believe that if everyone gave the private charity they ought to, and millions of people were still struggling without healthcare, Jesus would oppose a democratic republic taxing the rich to help provide healthcare to them?

Sometimes I think right-wing Christians hear the words "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and somehow imagine they can help those rich people make up for their coming damnation through lower taxes in this life!

I am write this on the assumption that most to the "Christians" (and I use that term loosely) are the same people that give me the bird in the grocery store parking lot. Just so you don't have to infer my upbring from what I am writing, I was raised Roman Catholic, went to catholic school and attended church every Sunday.

In this my catholic schooling we learned of the teachings of Christ. Correct me if I am wrong but Christ spent the vast majority of his time trying to lead by example and teach to love and care for all men. He never referred to lepers, the poor, prostitutes, or the underprivileged as "Leaches, Mooches or parasitic". These are the exact people that Christ tried to help and told his followers to do the same.

It seems to me that most "Christians" now are more interested in their own well being except for one hour on Sunday. They live in the constant fear of having one less toy, one less SUV (you have seen the SUV's with the Jesus fish on the back), one less vacation or one less dinner out. These are the horrible examples of Christians, there are good ones out there. Many churches and their followers are trying to practice what Jesus taught... Helping others! This action brings the best results when we help others when it means personal sacrifice. Try to live the Beatitudes in your life today, even in traffic. Most will be amazed at how Christlike they really are not.

Let's dispel some misinformation...
Socialized medicine? Afraid, are you scare of the Police, Fire Dept, public schools, our army, or the road system? They are all examples of socialized services.

If you are so against medicine being government run then try these things for the next few months.

1. If you home is on fire ask all the "Christians" on your block to help save the cat inside and get in there and put it out.

2.If you are robbed then call the church. Depending on who you get on the phone your options will probably be Forgiveness (you won't get your stuff back), Burning at the stake (hope the screaming criminal doesn't bother your kids, that was Christian punishment) or why not crucify the criminal... oh that one might bother you a little bit.

3.Have you ever looked at someone and thought "are you really that stupid"... meet your kid's new teacher. With government standardization anyone can teach kids.

If Christians were more Christlike I would be in church every day.

I see the health reform debate as a TEST to determine if I (you) have compassion for others or not. The "for profit" health insurance industry is all about profit ($$$/greed) and as most Christians know it is harder for a rich man to reach the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

I agree to pay more in taxes to help others less fortunate than me get help when they are sick; I choose compassion for others over greed.

A nation that spends huge amount of money on war and gives no aid to the poor and sick has no soul. Big corporations such as the health insurance industry, banking industry, gas and coal industry, food industry focus is on making ever bigger profits; and has no soul.

This is a test - selfishness or compassion? Those who care not for others are failing this test.

Health care is most definitely a moral issue. Anybody who thinks it is moral to live in a society in which some people live in million-dollar homes while others do not have the basics of life (and health care is most definitely a basic need) is disgustingly immoral.

The soul of America is sick because we are too fat. We are a nation of couch potatoes. Our children are in front of computers instead of playing outdoors and guzzling soft drinks loaded with high fructose corn syrup - a poison brought too you by federal farm subsidies, which causes obesity and diabetes.

The soul of America is sick because our representative are too corrupt and we don't have term limits.

"I get my health care at the Emergency Room. It's free. You people still paying for health care? SUCKERS!"

It's not free. I AM PAYING FOR IT through my high premiums. But you are right about the "suckers" part...maybe we should all just boycott a very evil and insidious system and DEMAND single-payer.

Many churches do help the poor here at home! The Southern Baptist give more to people here at home then the amounts you claimed for Franklin Grahmn, and no his father Billy was around when Samartian Purse came into being and was proud of his son and what he was accomplishing.

It isn't news when churches pay heating bills, provide back to school items, give A/C units to elderly, when they give and distribut tons of food at no charge to the one who needs help. What they do every year just isn't news so you won't hear about it.

I keep hearing health care is a right and in a way you are right. You have a right to exercise or not. Many of the things that stuff into our mouths isn't food, for instance Coke and Pepsi. You have the right to eat nutricous foods or not. To smoke or drink in excess or to drive drunk or distracted by your cell phone or not. You have a right to snack between meals, at least when grandma isn't watching or not. You have the right to buy your kids expensive toys that allow them to be the most obese generation in our Countries history. You have the right, according to the Supreme Court, to have sex anytime with any person that is of age, though that is debateable or not. You have the right to have sex with as many people as you want even if you get a std or to wait to have sex with the man / girl of your dreams, but why do the the people you don't know have to pay for the delivery and the care for a smaller birth child because you were too lazy to go to reduced charged public health clinics, or too morally lazy to keep your pants on. You also have the right not to buy health insurance or not even if you are 19 - 65 healthy as a horse and make $ 75,000 or more and just don't want to buy health insurance.

You have many other rights when it comes to your health, Not the right to reach into the pocket of strangers and expect them to pay for your rights.

As for 35 million uninsured,or what ever number it really is. Many of them have the right to apply for work permitsby being here without the proper paper trail. Not one of the illegals has the right to expect me to pay for their right to health care after they violated numerous of our laws to be here. Not one of their children has the right to free education or health care here. Yes I know that if they cross into our country one minute befor they are born that child is considered a citizen and entittled to certain rights which include life, liberty, and the opportunity afforded to all our citizens.

Last point when it comes to 20,000, or whatever the real number is, that die each year for not having health insurance, that many or more die from a disease or a mistake of care while they are in hospitals. These horror stories come from countries that have universal health insurance as well. The difference is in those country's the Government gets to choose who are the people who are denied access to health care.

I naively thought only a small number of so-called Christians are so angry and so full of hatred at the idea of providing health care to all Americans. From the postings here, it appears I am wrong. A large number of so-called Christians HATE the idea of affordable heath care. It is your right as an American to voice your opposition but please do not call yourselves Christians because Christ would never have acted that way.

Apparently, government has become Mr. Wallis's new religion. As a member of Obama's "spiritual commission," he's been a good student of all of the president's talking points about health care. And like the president, Wallis pays no attention to fiscal responsibility. Medicare already has a deficit of 38 trillion. So how much more would the deficit grow with the addition of a public option for millions of people?

I get my health care at the Emergency Room. It's free. You people still paying for health care? SUCKERS!

Its about time that everyone in America can go to a doctor when sick.

"Talk about pulling out all the stops in this health care debate. Progressive Christians? Whatever. You and the Barney Franks have lost the debate. Government-controlled, "next-in-line" health care ain't gonna happen. Not now, not ever. Not here."

Well said, rossodom. I couldn't agree more.

Talk about pulling out all the stops in this health care debate. Progressive Christians? Whatever. You and the Barney Franks have lost the debate. Government-controlled, "next-in-line" health care ain't gonna happen. Not now, not ever. Not here.

Quinn and Meacham continue their assault on faith with this endless stream of progressive socialists claiming to be churchgoers citing mindless, DNC- supplied statistics about made-up scenarios and spouting ludicrous tripe about people "living in fear!" You people commenting here about health care would be better served commenting on this jerk pompously talking about 'sick souls' And notice it is always, ALWAYS in this column America that is sick, whether it is the American polity, the American economic system, the American healthcare system, the traditional American melting pot or anything else American. It is always bad, sick, evil, racist, homophobic, sexist or something else. Enjoy your reading.

The Healthcare Reform envisioned by Obama and his team at start of his presidency has morphed into something of an unHealthcare Reform that is totally undesirable and will only be a burden to tax payers.

The compromise has lead to a sort of Healthcare Bill that is no better than current system.

So why waste tax dollars on something that is now just a tool to fulfill some egos.

A better option at this point is for Obama administration to focus on enactment of rules and regulations that will allow foreign trained healthcare professionals (doctors and paramedical included) to operate in US & allow approved generics be available in US & bring more medicine to a OTC status. This is the only alternative that will help bring down the cost of medical care in US.

I still hope Obama administration can come up with a Healthcare Reform that will enable ordinary people in US to obtain the level of Healthcare available to lawmakers. And if that requires Obama to continue into his second term so be it.

After 10 year in Public Health and more in Case Management, this high ground morality position is unreasonable. Does the author believe that obese Americans and noncomplinat patients are immoral? Time and again we have seen that access to healthcare does not improve outcomes. There were great efforts put into Disease Management programs for underserved populations (Medicare and Medicaid) where people were provided with individualized care, expanded benefits, and direct personal education. Yet Disease Management failed as the recipients continued to use the Emergency Department (despite access to personal physicians)and to show no significant improvement in health outcomes.

Americans like to demonize insititutions and cast blame on others while not taking accountability for their own actions and behaviors. If there is a morality issue in American healthcare, it starts with Americans first.

Insurance companies, universities, hospitals, and doctors all are not charitable organizations. The biggest hostpitals where I live are run by non profit universities. But the people who run those universities and do the high level jobs in the hosptials enjoy high salaries and expect to live very well. Most of the people who use health care expect to live well too. People may have different ideas about how the society should be run. But most of those people usually think it is someone elses duty to pay the bill.

Healthcare reform ...

"Do not be in a hurry to change one evil for another"

Aesop (620 BC-560 BC)

Institute a mental competency exam and intellect test at the voting booths. If you have no conception how government actually works, agree or disagree with it, you really have no idea what you are voting for or against. Gut instinct is a poor substitute for actual thought.

Elitist? I guess if you think informed opinions are elite.

Well, tell that to the BIBLE THUMPING rethugs with their frigging and worthless core values. Their only value to cherish is to help the insurance industry maintaining their profits.

Even if healthcare is made available to all Americans, it will be done so in a tiered, levels of service manner. There can be a minimum safety net for all, but there is no way that the well-to-do will accept protracted waits for the higher level of medical service attention that they will demand. An even greater issue is the provision of extremely costly medical procedures to post-70-year-old individuals who, if their procedures are successful, will only live on for a matter of months and with a dramatically reduced quality of life. Is it worth the expense?

Nice of Jesus to drop in. Wonder why he didn't clear up the health problem while he was here, maybe x out cancer at least. Guess it was do not open until December 25, ie he thought it would be more fun to wait for the second coming. Still waiting.

The current healthcare system we have is an accident of history. It was created as a way to compensate workers in key industries during World War II when there was a wage freeze. It was broadened during the postwar boom, although it never became anything close to universal. Before the war, people paid for healthcare out of pocket - which for most people that meant buying very little or none at all. There is a reason why life expectancy was much lower then.

So now we have an industry that has a vested interest in serving those who need it the least, a vested interest and an institutional capacity to deny or delay care, and a vested interest and an institutional capacity to bend politicians to its will.

We don’t have the benefit of starting from scratch; we can’t just dismiss the current complicated circumstance. What is needed is a serious discussion between ourselves and the government and equally important a discussion with each other - without all of the name-calling vitriol that some take as their entitlement.

I used to hear Communism described as
Christianity at gun point. Also taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his needs. I wonder why the health care debate conjured this up??

I used to hear Communism described as
Christianity at gun point. Also taking from each according to his ability and giving to each according to his needs. I wonder why the health care debate conjured this up??

unrestrained, profits ahead of people/earth/living things capitalism is also part of the problem. It was Jesus himself who said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

And all these prosperity preachers, all the churches that value fundraising and building mega-church sanctuaries instead of serving/feeding/clothing the poor/hungry/disaffected ... wonder what Jesus would really think?

Access to Healthcare is a right, not a trip to McDonald's.

fr krankyman:

>...Get off your fat tuckus and visit some churches before you spout your nonsense.
Churches provide food, they provide shelter, they provide mental...

A FEW churches do, not all. Actually, the poster that you were so "kindly" answering to is correct. Alot of the mega"churches" send gazillions overseas to Third World countries instead of working to eradicate poverty right HERE at HOME. Franklin Graham's "samaritan's purse" is a prime example. He sends LOTS of $ and supplies overseas, and I am sure his father would be appalled at the way he ignores poverty right here at home. Patty "send me all your money" robber$on is another prime example with his diamond mines in Liberia where he makes the workers get their stomachs Xrayed everyday just to "make sure they're not stealing". He can't be bothered with helping people HERE AT HOME.

I mentioned to someone in an on-line debate that 18,000 people died every year directly because they had no health insurance and this person said : "so what" because so many more die in car accidents. This debate on health care has brought out a large group of people who feel that protecting the 45 million who have no insurance will only subtract from the quality of the care of those who do have insurance and therefore this has to be stopped. I would say that they soul of this country is in deep trouble

"Why are people here so mean to this writer? "

Isn't it obvious? This board is populated by Christian-hating bigots.

More to the point, the pharmaceutical industry is sick, along with the health insurance industry.

Similarly, the American robber barons on Wall Street have managed to get me lumped together with those whom the common man nowadays condemns as banksters. When I trained in Canada as an Economist in the 1970's before I embraced a career in central banking for about 18 years and in development banking for about 20 years, the discipline that Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen, Mahbub-ul-Haq and Jimmy Tobin practiced was still sometimes known as moral science.

Decency has been destroyed, and we know whom we have to thank for it.

Mr. Wallis's selection of scripture to back up his claim is a reach, and he doesn't go nearly deep enough to uncover the real problem in health care. The much deeper issue is the way many Americans take care of themselves---poorly-- including those without health insurance. We must first address the root cause of the crisis, and that is not enough people taking care of themselves. Until then, the problem will only escalate.

Those writers who have become hung up here on the role of the church in this matter miss the point, I think. The essential piece is that this is a moral issue, whether we frame it in terms of religion or a particular church, or more simply in general terms of how human beings should interact with, and care for and about, one another.

We keep hearing that 46-47 million of our fellow citizens are without health care right now. I personally know hardworking, middle class people who have no health coverage right now because they chose to eat instead, or to clothe their children.

I have known hardworking couples supposedly covered by major private insurance plans who nevertheless lost everything when a family member need major coverage and the insurance company denied coverage and stalled paying until the person with the illness was nearly at death's door. The family, unable to wait any longer, paid themselves and, as a consequence, went bankrupt.

As a small business owner myself (with my wife), I know the outlandish, ever=growing amount we pay in order to insure the two of us and our one employee. All this talk about "co-op groups" is coming from the same people who have claimed all along that it's easy to become a part of such a program and save big bucks. Guess what? It simply is not true. We are expert researchers, and such savings are elusive or fictional.

Finally, here is a question: if the 46-47 million uninsured were the members of the two houses of Congress and the richest people in the U.S, instead of the needy or the middle class; if the most powerful among us were told, "You and your families cannot have medical coverage until you offer coverage coverage to the rest of our citizens", how long do you think it would take for Congress to offer legislation that would clean up the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and offer a workable public option to keep those industries honest? The answer is that it would take about fifteen seconds.

This is the second reason that this is truly a moral issue we are looking at here. Money should not be the issue, other than the obvious point that any plan that becomes law must contain clear, strong guidelines and restraints to keep costs down. That part seems to be in the current proposals, but this alone won't solve the problem.

I respect the fact that people have a wide variety of opinions on this complex subject. Nonetheless, I have come to feel (reluctantly) that we should offer a a public option not necessarily to take the place of private insurance, but to keep the industries honest.

Thanks for reading this overly long submission.

Those of us of faith (and perhaps those of us without faith), whether conservative or liberal, right wing or progressive, should be able to agree that providing medical care to those who cannot afford it is a moral thing to do. This could be done simply by expanding Medicare (and not by forcing insurance on the 15 million Americans who choose not to have it).

The problem, of course, is that Democrats cannot be seen as expanding our largest entitlement program. It's much more politically palatable for them to call it "reform" and pretend there will be savings when the CBO has said time and again that not only will there be no savings, but that insuring more people will (surprise!) cost more money. Pretending it will cost less to insure more people is just intellectually disingenuous and dishonest.

Just as it is moral to care for the poor among us, it is equally moral to be able to pay for that care. Taxing the "rich" is always an easy (and certainly popular) answer, but it simply isn't enough. What is needed is shared sacrifice.

And by shared sacrifice, what I mean is equal contributions from both Democratic and Republican constiuencies. So let's not just soak corporate America (Republicans) by capping Medicare prescription costs without having the trial attornies (Democrats) feel their share of the burden through tort reform. And let's not just tax the "rich" (Republicans) without having "middle income" seniors (Democrats) reduce the inflation increases to their social security benefits.

This is the kind of discussion we need to be having in Washington. If only there were a few leaders more interested in doing what is moral than in getting a handout for their constituents or being re-elected...

Those writers who have become hung up here on the role of the church in this matter miss the point, I think. The essential piece is that this is a moral issue, whether we frame it in terms of religion or a particular church, or more simply in general terms of how human beings should interact with, and care for and about, one another.

We keep hearing that 46-47 million of our fellow citizens are without health care right now. I personally know hardworking, middle class people who have no health coverage right now because they chose to eat instead, or to clothe their children.

I have known hardworking couples supposedly covered by major private insurance plans who nevertheless lost everything when a family member need major coverage and the insurance company denied coverage and stalled paying until the person with the illness was nearly at death's door. The family, unable to wait any longer, paid themselves and, as a consequence, went bankrupt.

As a small business owner myself (with my wife), I know the outlandish, ever=growing amount we pay in order to insure the two of us and our one employee. All this talk about "co-op groups" is coming from the same people who have claimed all along that it's easy to become a part of such a program and save big bucks. Guess what? It simply is not true. We are expert researchers, and such savings are elusive or fictional.

Finally, here is a question: if the 46-47 million uninsured were the members of the two houses of Congress and the richest people in the U.S, instead of the needy or the middle class; if the most powerful among us were told, "You and your families cannot have medical coverage until you offer coverage coverage to the rest of our citizens", how long do you think it would take for Congress to offer legislation that would clean up the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and offer a workable public option to keep those industries honest? The answer is that it would take about fifteen seconds.

This is the second reason that this is truly a moral issue we are looking at here. Money should not be the issue, other than the obvious point that any plan that becomes law must contain clear, strong guidelines and restraints to keep costs down. That part seems to be in the current proposals, but this alone won't solve the problem.

I respect the fact that people have a wide variety of opinions on this complex subject. Nonetheless, I have come to feel (reluctantly) that we should offer a a public option not necessarily to take the place of private insurance, but to keep the industries honest.

Thanks for reading this overly long submission.

Mr. Wallis's selection of scripture to back up his claim is a reach, and he doesn't go nearly deep enough to uncover the real problem in health care. The much deeper issue is the way many Americans take care of themselves---poorly-- including those without health insurance. We must first address the root cause of the crisis, and that is not enough people taking care of themselves. Until then, the problem will only escalate.

For those of you who say "Why doesn't the church do this or that?" Don't you realize that the church just like the government is the people!!

When did we become so hardened to the least of us? So sad.

But did Jesus really perform any of those NT/healing miracles?????

Unfortunately most Christians have not ventured past the NT with respect to the "miracles" of the simple preacher man. Had they, they would find that many contemporary NT exegetes such as Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, have concluded that said "miracles" are simply more myths added in most part by the author of John's gospel to kick this simple preacher man, aka Jesus, up a few notches to the realm of deity.

Dear Toughchoices,

I'm more than willing to pay additional taxes to support a public good like national health insurance--to answer your question. And while I can't be sure, I suspect millions of others would too. Tens of millions in other industrialized countries willingly do the same every day, and they enjoy benefits in terms of greater longevity, near-universal coverage and costs WAY under ours.

I am far from rich by the way. (I do wish that political leaders in both parties were more honest by asking me upfront to pay for what I receive. On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't blame them too much. They're genuinely terrified of right-wingers who shriek and wail when anyone suggests that taxes are actually used to finance public goods that society wants and needs!)

Our present course of every rich person for himself and by himself is not just unsustainable, inequitable, benefits too few, and leaves millions behind. It also distorts our entire healthcare system, turning it a disease-care system, rationed by income and responsive only to money. So we now have a shortage of primary care doctors because our money-based system values expensive specialists instead. (Why offer somebody a Volkswagen if you're really in the business to sell Cadillacs?)

Just some of the reasons why you (and I) are being asked to change what we have.

'The soul of America', that is something to reckon with. What is our recognition regarding anything we do from a collective standpoint? If this is a religious matter that is required by 'the church' to help the poor; why not have the Catholic or Mormom or Adventist churches provide health care for the poor so they can be healed physically, and introduced to God spiritually?

Where does the responsibility for man start and end? What responsibility do parents have towards their children? I would agree that healthcare should be available to everyone, especially the children. If we have parents unable to afford insurance, children need well care provided to them because their parents inability to effectively participate in society or afford to participate. The parents can fend for themselves, I believe.

If you really want to go extreme, why not all faith based groups start their own insurance plan and contract with hospitals or institutions? Do you think they would get great rates?

The soul of the society cannot be defined in the same context as the soul of a family, because there are too many variables. When you don't have people on the same page, the page looks differently to each person. Children however need to be provided for because they cannot fend for themselves.

'The soul of America', that is something to reckon with. What is our recognition regarding anything we do from a collective standpoint? If this is a religious matter that is required by 'the church' to help the poor; why not have the Catholic or Mormom or Adventist churches provide health care for the poor so they can be healed physically, and introduced to God spiritually?

Where does the responsibility for man start and end? What responsibility do parents have towards their children? I would agree that healthcare should be available to everyone, especially the children. If we have parents unable to afford insurance, children need well care provided to them because their parents inability to effectively participate in society or afford to participate. The parents can fend for themselves, I believe.

If you really want to go extreme, why not all faith based groups start their own insurance plan and contract with hospitals or institutions? Do you think they would get great rates?

The soul of the society cannot be defined in the same context as the soul of a family, because there are too many variables. When you don't have people on the same page, the page looks differently to each person. Children however need to be provided for because they cannot fend for themselves.

When Jesus healed the sick He never sent the bill to some poor working stiffs in the next town over, nor did he tell everyone else in the town where the sick person was that their own approaches to health would have to be changed forever--THAT is what is wrong with the so-called reform proposals: most Amnericans would agree that soemthing should be done to help the unisured receive the medical servcies they need; they just don't see why their own health insurance has to be radically changed to accomplish it nor why they should have to pay for such change (and if anyone believes that Obamacare can be funded only by taxing the "rich" please remember that the Democrats in the 1990s defined as rich plenty of people who were solidly middle class).

Why are people here so mean to this writer? He is expressing the core of his Christian faith as it applies to society -- to care for the poor, to pursue justice, and seek reconciliation as a part of healing. What is wrong with demanding society tear down the artificial boundaries it creates between people, separating them by wealth, class, and access to power...and to health care?

If only more Christians took more seriously their own gospel....

"What matters more to Americans? A healthy national soul or money in the pocket. I'd like to see some wrenching cost cutting attempted in the Federal Government. There are, of course so-called entitlements,"

I've got news for you.

We're *all* entitled in this country. it's just a question of how we arrange it.

What we're *not* entitled to is to be stupid and greedy and expect everything to be shiny if only people kneel in the right direction.

What matters more to Americans? A healthy national soul or money in the pocket. I'd like to see some wrenching cost cutting attempted in the Federal Government. There are, of course so-called entitlements, that have designated cash sources that are swiped and magically transformed to I.O.U.s to fund wars and other necessary pork barrel spending. Entitlements would be social security (F.I.C.A tax), Medicare, Medicaid, Community Development Block Grants, and Aid to Education. A huge fraction of tax money goes to fund National Defense which is broadly defined as sending in the Marines wherever and whenever it suits the convenience of our resident patriots in the Party of God (G.O.P.). Habitually, Congress forces the Pentagon to buy things they don't want and develop things they don't need because it means JOBS in the home district. That's welfare, an entitlement, for Our Irresponsible Elected Leaders. You could cut the Pentagon budget in half, bring home all the troops and wait patiently for another attack. But that would be "unwise" according to the likes of Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, people are dying to see a doctor.

"Churches provide food, they provide shelter, they provide mental health counseling, they provide funds to those in need."

Sometimes. For a few. It's a big deal to those doing it, a drop on the sidewalk to the millions who need help or are having a hard time.

Good things to do, but even if not done with ulterior motives, namely using the misfortune of others to play the part of 'the poor' in the 'redemption of your own soul...

It is not and cannot be any kind of substitute for the social obligations of a Western democracy of hundreds of millions and untold wealth.

"This work is performed mostly by volunteers motivated by compassion, some of the work is done by individuals whose labor is paid for by these churches."

That they are motivated in this way does not mean it's the best America can do, or even that they could fulfill our nation's social obligations that way, even if they *did* have their way, they would have to become just as big as the 'government' some invoke their work to try and dismantle.

On a personal level, anyone should do what they can. On a political one, *never* get so vain as to think it won't be appropriated by those trying to cross something off a balance sheet.

Are there any churches that offer low cost group plans to their congregations?

I think this is a gloriously written column. The "right wing" in our great country is twisting and manipulating religion and "morality" to its own selfish ends, and far too many gullible Americans are being taken in by it. It is just plain immoral -- by the standards of any recognized religion, not just the "Bible"-based ones -- to let people succumb to diseases like animals in the wild just because they cannot afford health care. Health care should not be a for-profit commodity, any more than police protection, fire protection, sanitation, etc. should be. These are all "public services" for the general public good, and it's just as silly to say "I can get health care because I can pay for it but you can't because you can't" as it would be to say "my garbage can get picked up weekly because I can afford it but yours can't because you can't" -- because in each case, if YOU don't have the service, it is MY well-being that is ultimately jeopardized by either your contagious disease or your rotting, vermin-attracting garbage.

so where are all the Christian churches during this medical crisis? why are they not providing medical care to those who need to be healed?
why are they not feeding the hungry? giving shelter to the homeless?
Oh i forgot - they're spening all their bucks on mega churches and TV shows and politics.
Posted by: stephenrhymer | August 19, 2009 3:20 PM
======================================
Get off your fat tuckus and visit some churches before you spout your nonsense.

Churches provide food, they provide shelter, they provide mental health counseling, they provide funds to those in need.

This work is performed mostly by volunteers motivated by compassion, some of the work is done by individuals whose labor is paid for by these churches.

It is paid by donations given after the donator has paid their taxes.

The question is when did you deliver food to the poor, when did you provide shelter to the homeless, when did you counsel those with mental health issues?

Thought so.

All religions are full of nice stories and fine words, urging their zealots on toward the extinction of their un-believer enemies. Now the goal of religion has changed from killing their enemies, to controlling their finances and personal lives. Whatever...

so where are all the Christian churches during this medical crisis? why are they not providing medical care to those who need to be healed?

why are they not feeding the hungry? giving shelter to the homeless?

Oh i forgot - they're spening all their bucks on mega churches and TV shows and politics.

You know what's good for *my* soul?

The thought that every time there's a bead of sweat on some fatcat profiteer's brow, it's almost like one of the many tears they've so self-righteously caused to the innocent.

"This is a strained and contrived rational for supporting the public option jumping through scriptural hoops."

roboturkey

Actually, you may notice that it's the people who claim to rely on strange interpretations of their own Scripture who are the ones freaking out about even a 'public option.'

I don't think they can even make a 'hoop' out of it. "How dare you say we should care for the sick without making scads of money off it! Antichrist!"

" "If, however, he is poor and cannot afford these..." and proceeds to give alternative sacrifices of lower cost to for the poor to pay instead."
"The laws governing the Hebrews ensured that participation in their health care system was not based upon economic status in the community."

From these quotes it seems like it *was,* actually, with one set of 'health care' considered 'normal,' and another for 'the poor' if you can no longer 'afford' to pay for these divine dispensations.

The way I see it, we have the means and motivation to have single-payer, high-quality health care available to all, in complete disregard to social class, which would benefit all of us, including business owners.

Then, if you want to go pay extra for the privileged care and convenience, well, I'm sure there's someone out there to take your money.

A problem in America is the *corporate Calvinism.* The notion that if you deserve 'healing' you ought to be able to 'afford' it.

And bloody well better have all the right things to fill in a 'form' with.

There's nothing 'holy' about arbiting all this through *money,* when in fact it screws up the *money* economy purely for the benefit of a *few,* who then turn around and call 'the free market' (try starting your own insurance company, if you think it's 'free') 'Holier' than the caring for the sick the names they invoke are supposed to represent.

Caring for each other is our obligation as a civilization. Whose economic theories are thus 'sanctified' in the process are secondary at best.

The religious debate now seems to be that one discredited political party is trying to channel pent up rage and xenophobia into mirages that the common person is going to lose something if we so much as stand up for ourselves as *consumers and Americans.*

Of course, people who think who I snuggle with is a national moral crisis, don't seem to embrace this 'morality' when it comes to practical things like this.

so if God wants health insurance, can't God just either:

- eliminate disease
or
- create His or Her own health insurance company?

This is a strained and contrived rational for supporting the public option jumping through scriptural hoops.