Questioning at a recent Republican debate in Texas:
Under current health care law (instituted under Reagan), emergency rooms have to treat anyone who comes through their doors, regardless of whether they have insurance or not. If they don’t pay, the cost is passed on to those who do pay. Under the new health care law passed in 2010, everyone has to buy insurance (subsidized for those who can’t afford it) or pay a fine, thereby ensuring that everyone is fiscally responsible for their own medical care to the degree they are able, while still making sure that everyone can be treated.
In recent debates, it has become apparent that many Republicans and Libertarians, especially some of those failing under the “Tea Party” umbrella, would prefer a third option: that no one has to get any insurance ahead of time, and that anyone who doesn’t have insurance or cash when they need medical care is out of luck. In the moderator’s example from the debate, if such a person faces unpayable costs, some such participants think we should just “let him die”.
The way I understood this issue developed dramatically for me when I realized that the man in the moderator’s example isn’t the person we would “let die”. This man in the example has a high-paying job, which makes it likely that he has wealthy coworkers and wealthy friends. He likely has a network of family support and the same access to resources that the majority of privileged Americans have. If a life-or-death situation occurs, no one is going to “let him die” – someone is going to step up to help him get the care that he needs. Chances are that a change in the law will not drastically affect him.
So who will it affect?
The alien, the orphan, and the widow. The immigrant, the foster child, the single mother, and all others like them. The ones who are not only most likely to be poor, but least likely to have the social network to support them when unpayable expenses rear their head. When we say that we want everyone to pull their own weight, when we say that the government system for health care costs should be eliminated in favor of social and church networks, it is the widow, the orphan, and the alien who are going to be the hardest hit.
We need to think really, really seriously about what God has to say to us about that.
Under current health care law (instituted under Reagan), emergency rooms have to treat anyone who comes through their doors, regardless of whether they have insurance or not. If they don’t pay, the cost is passed on to those who do pay. Under the new health care law passed in 2010, everyone has to buy insurance (subsidized for those who can’t afford it) or pay a fine, thereby ensuring that everyone is fiscally responsible for their own medical care to the degree they are able, while still making sure that everyone can be treated.
In recent debates, it has become apparent that many Republicans and Libertarians, especially some of those failing under the “Tea Party” umbrella, would prefer a third option: that no one has to get any insurance ahead of time, and that anyone who doesn’t have insurance or cash when they need medical care is out of luck. In the moderator’s example from the debate, if such a person faces unpayable costs, some such participants think we should just “let him die”.
The way I understood this issue developed dramatically for me when I realized that the man in the moderator’s example isn’t the person we would “let die”. This man in the example has a high-paying job, which makes it likely that he has wealthy coworkers and wealthy friends. He likely has a network of family support and the same access to resources that the majority of privileged Americans have. If a life-or-death situation occurs, no one is going to “let him die” – someone is going to step up to help him get the care that he needs. Chances are that a change in the law will not drastically affect him.
So who will it affect?
The alien, the orphan, and the widow. The immigrant, the foster child, the single mother, and all others like them. The ones who are not only most likely to be poor, but least likely to have the social network to support them when unpayable expenses rear their head. When we say that we want everyone to pull their own weight, when we say that the government system for health care costs should be eliminated in favor of social and church networks, it is the widow, the orphan, and the alien who are going to be the hardest hit.
We need to think really, really seriously about what God has to say to us about that.
1 comments:
Let me make one last thing clear again. Some good friends argue that all government aid should be eliminated because only church aid is appropriate. I’m not sure if such arguments stem from a desire for the church to have a leg up in evangelization, a strong dislike of taxes and government authority, an internalization of the words of certain religious figures who have adapted their theology to political rhetoric, or just an unconscious acceptance of their family’s or community’s positions. But regardless of why they hold their theoretical position, I want them to deeply consider who would be most affected by their views. Even the extremely wealthy Christians that populate most American churches have shown only a little interest in providing care for those who cannot care for themselves, and even if there was enough motivation in American churches to care for the millions who cannot access things we consider basic needs, there would be hundreds of thousands of people among those millions who would never be able to connect to a church that could care for their needs. It is the most marginalized, the most vulnerable, the most mistreated by society who would be least likely to obtain the help they need from their social network. I do not believe that government aid can replace relationships, and I think that relational ministry with the marginalized needs to be a major focus of the church’s interaction with broader society (here in Vancouver, Jacob’s Well, 614, Servants, Grandview Baptist Church, and a few other communities are all admirably striving to perform this role). But not everyone is going to be reached by a relational ministry right away, and it’s hard to build a relationship with someone who’s dead.
Post a Comment