Perhaps you too have noticed a seemingly AWOL subject in the health-care debate: morality, right and wrong, the kind of people/nation we are and seek to be, stuff like that.
It seems instead that it all comes down to this: will I have to pay more, or will I get less? While President Obama has recently touched on the moral case for reform, for the most part he's been reduced to arguing that no one’s existing costs or health-care premiums will increase. The language of the debate, like most everything else, seems to be that of cost-benefit calculus. Market metrics are taken for granted as valid these days (despite the recent failure of the market god), while the subject of the morality of current arrangements is ruled out of order.
My memory is that the debate on health care and efforts to change it were prompted not just by cost factors (real and worrisome as they are) but by questions of equity, care for the most vulnerable, and health care as something that ought to be available to everyone. In other words, we were asked to think of others, not just ourselves.
But somewhere along the way this seems to have been eclipsed. Now, when arguments for covering the 47 million uncovered Americans are made, it’s because covering Americans seems more cost effective than not covering them.
Recently Glenn Beck told the Conservative Political Action Conference that the concept of community is “a cancer,” that it was “not our founders’ idea of America.” This made me think of the 1630 sermon given by Puritan leader John Winthrop aboard the new world-bound Arabella:
Now the only way to avoid . . . shipwreck and to provide for our posterity is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God, for this end, we must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain one another in brotherly Affection, we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities . . . We must delight in each other, make others’ Conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our Commission and Community in the work.Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, might have some claim to be considered one of the founders.
Anthony B. Robinson is a speaker, teacher and author. His most recent book is Changing the Conversation: A Third Way for Congregations. He is president of the Seattle-based Congregational Leadership Northwest.
8 comments:
Tony,
Thanks for addressing something that has been bothering me throughout this never-ending debate, and that is the lack of concern for the well-being of our neighbors, especially by some of the loudest voices who claim Christian faith. The Winthrop quote is great, but how about the Bible itself, with its relentless concern for the poor and needy. How did Americans become so heartless?
Rick
How dare those IMMORAL people consider the unintentional consequences and costs to our society of the health plans on the table!
How dare they not want government having greater control over their health care decisions!
How dare they not want taxes raised on the busineses who provide their jobs or the individuals who patronize the businesses where they work!
How dare they think that if the business where they work has no work for them to do that they will lose their jobs!
How dare they not want to be reliant on government for every doctors visit!
How dare they have different ideas on the best way to reform our health system! This is America for goodness sakes, get in line or else.
How dare they, those heartless immoral Americans!
Jim T.
Jim T.: What prompted such a sarcastic response to Anthony Robinson's raising the question of why we, as a nation, no longer seem to be discussing the moral implications of making sure that every American receives at least basic health care, if not the very best health care this nation can provide? Such a comment is very surprising on a religious, theological blog where one would assume that questions of morality are most welcome and most open to reasonable discussion. If we cannot explore the morality of our national discussions and decisions especially in such a forum as Theolog and in the religious square, what possible hope is there of ever entertaining questions of morality in the public square? I certainly did not understand Robinson to be questioning any particular point of view in the discussion as being immoral, but rather pointing out the total lack of attention to the moral question in the health care reform discussion. Steve from Miami
Seriously, Steve from Miami, you must be joking or possibly being sarcastic yourself.
If you are unable to see the obvious implications made in both the original post and the one by Rick, you are hopeless. My comments are also directed at the post from Steve Thorngate of a couple days ago where clergy in MN similarly condemned Pawlenty.
The morality issue has been present in the debate, but the progressive movement just wants to pretend it doesn't exist. You might want to check into the Stupak ammendment. Oh wait, when it comes to abortion, we aren't supposed to legislate morality.
Jim T.
Seriously, Steve from Miami, you must be joking.
If you are unable to see the obvious implications made in the origional post and the comment by Rick you are hopeless. My comment was also directed at the post from Steve Thorngate of a couple days ago on the clergy from MN similarly condemning Pawlenty.
The progressive religious movement wants to ignore it but morality has been a part of the debate since day 1. You might want to check into the Stupak ammendment. Oh wait, when it comes to abortion, we aren't supposed to legislate morality.
Jim T.
Tony,
You are right-on in your observation about the lack of debate about morality, and I think it stems mostly from a drastic miscalculation in the Democrats’ rhetorical position.
Instead of parading out story after story of people whose lives have been destroyed or shortened by lack of health insurance (thus building a moral, “love thy neighbor” case) Democrats have engaged in the fiscal argument that “the uninsured are getting health care anyway—they’re just getting it in the most expensive ways (like ERs) and they’re doing it on YOUR dime.” Even Democrats can’t argue that the uninsured are getting really expensive health care that you and I are paying for, while simultaneously insisting that there is a moral crisis because people can’t get health care.
The worst part of the miscalculation is that Democrats almost always lose fiscal debates (on things like taxes and spending)—while they tend to do fairly well in moral ones (like social security and Medicare).
If this debate was framed around who is against getting families and parents and children the life-saving treatments they need, rather than on who is paying for who else’s insurance—we would have had a bill in the middle of last year.
--Sam
Tony,
I think you are right on the money. The proponents of health care should have emphasized the moral dimension of the problem. From a biblical perspective we are called to care for the most vulnerable members of our society. Al of the Old Testament prophets took their societies to task of ignoring God's claim on them in this area. We should be no different.
Sam: Great comments on the Dems failures to address these issues.
The 2 anons: I think you can make your points without resorting to sarcasm. It does not belong on the pages of a theologically oriented blog. We are comomanded to love ur enemies and speak wll of those who revile us. If Lincoln could be generous to the defeated South ("They are now our countrymen now ..."), then surely we can do the same. Hey, WWJD? Well, I think we know! So cool it with the attitude, OK?
What is immoral is taking more of the poor and tying them into a system that feeds on the blood of the poor.
With fee-for-service and Doctor owned facilities, medical professionals are still incentivized to send people for more Procedure$. Without tort reform, malpractice fears lead to more Procedure$ as a defensive measure. With malpractice concerns high, rural medical facilities pay more because they don't have $tuff to do Procedure$. And in all of this, the insurance companies remain the arbiters of health care while their CEO'$ rake in the money.
We can "do it in the name of heaven and justify it in the end" but there "won't be any trumpets blowing" on the judgment day when God asks "why did you sell the poor for a pair of sandals?"
Post a Comment
We don't currently require registration, but we do prefer that you include your name. If you don't have any of the login types listed in the pulldown menu, select "Name/URL"--the URL field is optional, so leave it blank if you don't want to hyperlink your name to another site.