What's a Christian to Think about Healthcare Reform?

Exactly! I run a small business (16 employees) and insurance costs are outrageous. I think most people do not understand what health insurance actually costs, because they only see the employee paid portions, co-pays and deductibles (that's only the tip of the iceberg). Anyone who thinks the current system provides "choice" is kidding themselves. So many employees are trapped and can't exercise their entrepreneurial skills because of the risk of having a lapse in coverage or being tagged with a "preexisting condition".

Universal Health care is not simply an issue of compassion. We need a universal system that provides incentives for entrepreneurship. The current system is a drain on capitalism. People complain that European style socialized medicine would raise our taxes, but they should add $10k-$20k per year in premiums before comparing the numbers.

I'm not sold on Obama's plan, but I'm glad there is finally a public discussion.

Can I just say that opposition to a national government-back health insurance program does not mean opposition to more affordable health care? I like most of what you and Ryan are saying. OTOH, there are many of us who have reason to oppose the thousands of pages going through congress (including the fact that it's thousands of pages), who would love to see more government oversight and tort reform that would make health care more accessible and affordable without the government doing to health care world what it's already done to the economy, the banking world and the automotive world.

I pay 1/3 of my monthly wages for health insurance through my employer. For this I get an insurance package that has a $2000 individual/$5000 family deductible, then the 80/20 kicks in. I also am limited in the doctors I can see, the drugs I can take, and the pharmacies I can use. I also have had a wait of anywhere from 30-45 days for non-emergency tests and procedures...all of which must be approved by an insurance company hack on the phone who lacks a medical degree and has never seen my medical records.

Brian, Kenton, Lance...even if my taxes QUADRUPLE under Obama's plan, I will be saving money.

I have a better question: Is it right to continue with a system that unquestionably favors the wealthy because it works for some people? Because how it works for those people might change? Tony is right--this isn't about people like him. This is about people who are uninsured. It's about the working poor, who are uninsured or underinsured but who don't qualify for social programs like Medicare. My family income is only $16,000/year--there are five of us--and we don't qualify for Medicare because we have more than $2,000 in the bank. The point being it doesn't take very much before one doesn't qualify for what's in place but still can't really afford to make up the difference, at least not without serious detriment to one's family finances. It's about those people?

Relating the question to the Christian life, I honestly don't see a tension there between preserving self and having compassion for another in Christianity. I think Christ's example is clear.

Then again, I don't even think this is about compassion simply. It's also about public health. We're all better off if we're all in better health. And we aren't in good health, as a nation. Our standard of care is below that of other industrialized nations--nations who do have national healthcare systems. It seems reasonable to assume we're doing it wrong and it needs to be fixed, no matter how good a wealthy Republican congressman feels about his insurance plan.

Perhaps the question isn't whether or not the poor need help with medical coverage, but where that help originates.

To me it's a cop out for the church to thrust the care for the poor on the government so we can go about our daily lives simply paying our taxes and thinking we are doing our part. That people go through life without medical care or other base needs is a failing of the followers of Christ.

IMHO by nature a large entitiy (the federal government) will make laws based on vast generalizations that will apply to many situations, but not near all. The only way for all people to get what they need is for local institutions (the church or other ministry organizations) to give on an individual basis. A government program may solve some current problems, but it will also create a set of new ones.

Christ said the kingdom of God is taking care of the widows and orphans. Not paying the government to do it.

P.S. Don't worry about the rich. They will always be able to afford private insurance above and beyond a public plan. It will be the poor who bear the brunt of government inefficiencies.

Greg,

The western church abdicated healthcare, education, and disability care to the government when the reformers started shutting down all the monasteries and convents that used to provide those services back in the late 16th century. I'm not sure the outcome was intended, but we are where we are, and we cannot go back.

Churches could better serve the needs of the poor If they themselves were not strapped with healthcare costs reflected in staff salaries. What's more, if innovative clergy could find alternative means of earning an incoming, the church could invest their personnel costs in missional ventures.

I also don't buy this unequivocal division between sacred & secular that I think wrongly informs our notions of church/state separation. The government is made up of human beings, and all human beings have a responsibility toward one another. The church doesn't own the rights to "doing good." The government can and should do good and treat people well.

I'm glad my Christian denomination - Presbyterian Church USA - is taking a lead in supporting the best health-care plan, Single-Payer Health Care (HR 676).

It's naive to think that private charity and the churches alone can handle the health care crisis and the nearly 50 million uninsured, and growing.

What I don't get is the number of people who affirm a "right to life", but don't seem to think that the right, if it means anything, must include rights to those things necessary to sustain life, food, clothing, shelter and health care.

The difference, at least in theory, is that there are multiple private insurance companies. The consumer can choose a company that works best, fits his needs, values, and new companies can start to fill felt needs.

Consider secondary schools, for comparison. There are many different types of private schools, of various religions, values, motivations, educational philosophies, but only one type of public school, teaching government values. There is always more freedom is found from private organizations (however greedy they may be), than from the government.

Now, health insurance may not be working very well at the moment. It most certainly requires reform. I just don't think throwing ourselves into the hands of one big organization located in Washington D.C. is the way to ensure ourselves and our churches freedom and liberty in the years to come.

As to the right to life thing, there's an important necessary distinction. Saying somebody has a "right" to something does not mean that we believe the government should provide it. When a person has a right to life, we do not mean that the government provides that person with life. Quite the opposite, we mean that the government ought not interfere or infringe on that person's right to life (which is endowed by his creator). The government should furthermore defend that right, prosecuting murder, preventing invasion, etc. When we say a person has a right to private property, the government does not provide that property, but refrain from confiscating it.

The case of "things necessary to sustain life," the case is the same. If we were to say a person has a right to food, we would not mean that the government must provide everyone with food, but that the government cannot take away what food we have, and ought to defend us from thieves who would. The same goes with health-care. If we have a "right to healthcare," it doesn't mean the government should provide it, just that the government can't take it away.

I find the entire premise of this essay, as given in the title, ludicrous and offensive. "What is a Christian to think?" Does being a Christian dictate how one is supposed to think on every social-economic-political issue facing America?

I know the drill: "Oh, no! Christians can have a wide variety of opinions on different issues, just like everyone else... But being a Christian means having certain values, and those values will influence what we think."

No. Christian doctrine (which is NOT a "value") dictates what is required in terms of theological belief; in terms of social issues, "guidance" from Christian bloggers and commentators is NOT based on Christian values because there is no such thing as Christian values -- that is, the values held by Christians are largely the same as those held by Jews and by many other religious and cultural groups. That guidance may be perfectly fine, the perspectives offered may be fair and honest -- but there is nothing uniquely Christian about such guidance.

This seems like a nit-picky issue, but I think it is important, because I am appalled at the degree to which Christians in America have willingly marched lock-step to the preachings of lunatics and demagogues who know how to shout "Lord! Lord!"

You want to know what to think about health care or Afghanistan or the environment or any other issue? Read widely, think, discuss, argue; by all means, see what various Christians think, but not BECAUSE they are Christians. And see what people of other faiths and of no faith have to say, as well.

To the title question, the answer is: "A Christian should think whatever he or she concludes based on research and rationality -- same as with non-Christians." And before you disagree, consider what you would be arguing to defend: the right of Christians to let other Christians tell them what to think?

Larry,

I believe you're wrong on point 1. The "right" is to the property that we obtain. (I had to go back to Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government to make sure I still knew what I was talking about, it's been a while). Whatever a person makes or obtains, he thereafter has a right to, and nobody else has that right. We may or may not have a "right" to obtain property, I'm not sure. But when we talk about the right to property we mean exclusive rights over whatever property we have obtained or made.

Which brings up point 2. I do not say "I have a right to whatever I can attain." Rather, I have certain rights endowed upon me by nature/God, that may not be infringed upon. Civil society differs from the state of nature in that I have an external authority to apply to when these rights are violated, rather than attempting to redress them myself.

As for point 3, I rather agree. If someone spends all their time protesting outside an abortion clinic and no time volunteering in a homeless shelter, hospital, or food pantry, they aren't valuing life as much as they should.

My only thought is this: do we own our bodies or does the government? I understand the compassion for those that are uninsured, but the trade-off here seems a bit lopsided in favor of submitting the kingdom of God to the kingdom of the world.

I have a hard time with so many people dying in this country because they don't have health care (or adequate health care). If we are indeed followers of Christ it seems to me that we would want to care for those who need it most, both physically and emotionally. We know that many of the home forclosures and even bankruptcies occur because of medical problems and yet we don't act. How can we pay more for health care than any other nation and yet are 37th in the world for quality of health care? Could it be that insurance companies, drug companies etc. want profit more than adequate health care for the American people?

You need to read Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" to see how wrong you are. I guess the NEW Christians are liberal statists.
You should research your topics more thoroughly before you post them.
You probably would not have been able to get back surgery on Obamacare.
Christ did not shed His blood so we would be dependent on the State for our care.

I think that it is just great to want to help out the needy. Manny can't afford
to pay for Doctor visits and services.
Better to lend a helping hand than to contibute to Wars.

Manny are greedy and are rich. They have so much money that they
do not know what do with it. They are bored.
Shareing is careing . Right?
Do this rich People really want to get the ultimate goal?
Which is eternal life.
Even middle class and semi poor People should help out
the needy.
I Am not saying that nobody helps.
Just saying that it is better to give than to recieve.
I thank God and Son Jesus for those that help the
poor. In Jesus Name.
Yes I Am a Christian.
Sincerely ,ARG
Bless You All.

Yes I understand that We the working class help to pay for the unfotunate poor and needy with ,housing,food stamps ,etc.etc,etc,
But I figure that there would not be a need to help this poor unfortunate souls,if there
were jobs for them.
Oh yes We have money for Wars. And for other things that We really do not need.
Can You imagine all the money waste or use for wars.
All this money could be used for creating jobs and other services to better our
Country.
So why not stop being greedy and lend a helping hand.
Donate to the Help the Poor organizations and to to Our own poor of this nation.
There will be alot more crime if We stop helping the poor with housing and
food stamps. So what will it be? Stop the free housing and food stamps and
have more crime or help the poor and keep crime low ?
Bottom line. We need more jobs and counceling for Our Country.
Sincerely, AG

I am a Canadian and although we differ we are the same. We get sick, we have children, we have spouses, and we have ourselves. You have to step into this asap, you will not be sorry. In times when we are short of dollars the last thing on our list is ourselves. Well be a little selfish put yourself first and go for this. We in Canada are not fearful to go to a doctor, yes we have long waiting periods and yes our doctors come times go south to you for the money, but do have the opportunity to walk into to any doctor and get help, and emergencies are on a triage need basis.
The one thing that I forget to thank God for is our Healthcare system, but you will too. OUrs is approximate 60 years old and is it perfect no, but it is available.

The value of coming under other people with self-sacrificial love is most commendable. For that reason every Christian should want to see people receive adequate care with regard to their health. I think both sides can agree on that. We should want to see people have their health care needs met.

The real issue is the best way to go about making sure that happens. And from my vantage point government is hardly the answer. They do not have a proven track record--social security, medicare...etc--all failures. Moreover, consider the fact that about 40% of Americans are actually taxpayers. Government involvement ultimately leads to restricted freedom.

I am sick of people on the religious left thinking that they have a greater concern for the socially marginalized--that they are more altruistic. That's a bunch of crap. The real issue is not altruism, but teh most effective solution. That is where the disagreement centers.

Mike R: I actually had somebody more conservative than me- and I know, I'm a conservative in THIS group- argue that a large gap between the rich and the poor was necessary for Christianity- for without the poor, who would we have to be charitable to?

I'm in a slightly different class, in that pre-existing conditions mean that if I got health insurance for my family, the cost would be 125% of my income. I have no employer health care, so we go without. I fear for the day my child breaks a bone, for we are too rich for the government programs in existence, but too poor to have insurance.

H4C,

"Does being a Christian dictate how one is supposed to think on every social-economic-political issue facing America?"

Well, according to the 'leading' "Christians", yes. Take a look at any website from the Let's Focus on SOME People's Families to Westboro Baptist Church.

As I read the scriptures I have never come across any verse that indicated that governments were the end all for us. To the contrary, I read where the Savior tells his followers that it is up to us to succor the poor and disadvantaged. Governments job is to protect its citizens from invaders and to have laws that protect the citizenry from those who would hurt them. If we allow government to take our money and provide all things to everyone we abdicate our responsibilities to Christ and our fellow man. My faith and Church believes that we take care of ourselves when we can and that the membership shares the burdens of all. We have our own system to help people in need, including food, clothing, shelter, and money when needed. We donate to a church wide fund for the poor and needy, of which I have found myself requesting a few times in my life. When we allow government to do everything for us we allow ourselves to become slaves to the government, for after all, if we become dependent upon the government we will be less likely to protest the abuses of government for fear of losing our 'benefits.' One other thing, government passes laws initially to protect its citizens but as more wickedness comes to society it is soon passing laws to make its citizens criminals. They government has absolute power. If you think I am wrong then try to understand all the laws that are passed and if you did you will find that we cannot possibly go through life without doing something that could put us in prison, no matter what you think of yourself. Our compassion comes from within as we reach out to those in need. It does not come from taxes which allow the government to decide our largess for us. Also, my faith stands firmly against abortions, yet my taxes would be going to a guaranteed right to abortion under a government plan. If a woman wants to abort life, then I guess she can, but she has no right to use my money for it when I am morally opposed to it.

Oh my God that a sick alien might get relief. What is the world coming to, when the sick are healed?

(From what I can tell, there are a lot more Americans sneaking into Canada for health care than Mexicans into the US.)

Lack of a public health care system is like abortion. In both, we kill children because it's cheaper and more convenient.

Government is not evil. Government is simply a group of people. People we elect. There are almost 50 million people that have no coverage many that struggle to pay high premiums. What has the church done to help these people?

why are so many operating on the principal that government is evil. We have the system of government we want don't we? If we don't like them we vote them out.

My question is how does a christian reconcile aversion to a healthcare plan that provides a way for everyone to have coverage with their wholesome christian values? I really do not understand that. What about taking care of the least among you. Why such great opposition to a health plan that would be run not for profit. If you don't support single payer or a public option, you support protecting the profits of the insurance companies and for-profit hospitals. I didn't see where Jesus tried to make a buck of the sick. Why do we accept that everything has to be about making money. Can't health care be a right?

We are the wealthiest nation on the planet and we have 50 million people without coverage, relying on emergency rooms for their health care needs. Our system is NOT the envy of the world. Our system is ranked about 38th. It only works really well for the very wealthy and most of us, over 90%, are not that wealthy.

Stop being so angry about government and think about welfare of everyone and not just "keeping your money". That doesn't seem very christian. I read you should worry about laying up treasures for your self on earth and something about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. Capitalism and Christianity are a strange mix unless you are following the prosperity gospel taught by so many televangelist.

Even Jesus showed respect for the government. He instructed his followers to give god what is gods and give ceasar what is ceasar's. I think that was Jesus and not Paul.

Show some respect for the government our military is paid with your tax dollars to protect. Show some empathy for those who are out of work, or disabled. Love your enemies, protect the vulnerable. Try living like a christian instead of spouting anti government gibberish and demonizing those who have different opinions than you. And realize that you are fighting to protect a disgusting system that takes money from the sick and ill in society to benefit wealthy investors and corporations. Look at the amount of money insurance companies have made over the last 10 years. Look at the percentage of bakrupcies caused by medical expences. Look at the rate at which premiums have increased vs inflation and growth of wages. The health care system is killing our economy. There are so many reasons to support reforming our system. Educate yourselves on the facts.