The hottest political football in America today is no longer the threat of terrorism or the actions of President Jarofvegemiteformeanddad in Iran… it is healthcare.
Sadly, in the whole debate, the most distressing part of it all for us, as pastor’s charged with promoting and nurturing relationships, is the loss of such. People are lining up on both sides of the issue, and anyone on the opposing side has become the enemy (we predict that there will be much gnashing of teeth from our friends in the faith after this posting… or perhaps we could be wrong!). Friendship and respect, faith and reason, has been summarily dismissed depending on what team people have lined up on. The very fact that such a thing is happening within the church between people on both sides is a damning indictment on all of us. It’s nothing more than sin in the guise of partisan politics.
With that said, it’s ok to hold views – perhaps even strong views – on this issue, and on both sides of this issue. So, in the spirit of adding to the debate, we would like to offer both our views, and the view of the United Methodist Church (according to our social principles) on this subject.
In doing so, let me first state our position on this. Yes, we are in favor of a socialized form of healthcare in the United States. Our views are based on actual experience under such (not just speculation or conjecture), and the knowledge that without the benefit of such a scheme, Mike would now be dead, Amy would be permanently crippled, and our family would be bankrupt. That is in no way an overestimation or overstatement of the facts for our particular family.
Let us start by addressing some of the really really stupid statements in this current debate. We won’t even pose the accusations leveled … merely, we will just provide the answers as we know them. We are not nazi’s. We do not admire Hitler. Our country of citizenship is absolutely democracy. We’ve never been called before a death panel. We choose our own doctors. Conservatives can and do embrace socialized medicine. The NHS in England and Medicare in Australia is not the invention of Satan designed to destroy the world.
We believe strongly that there currently exists a moral imperative in the USA for healthcare reform. We think that is a statement that most of us agree with, no matter what side of the debate you may or may not fall on.
We choose to pay for our own health insurance here in the United States. Like many people, we find the burden of such cumbersome and difficult. Over a ¼ of our gross income each month goes toward healthcare. Unfortunately for Mike, no matter how hard we work, or how much we pay, he is considered largely uninsurable under the current US health care system. Thus the scourge of a ‘pre-existing condition’. Even if we doubled our premiums, he would still not be covered. This means that if one of us breaks an arm, then we can get it set and it won’t cost us thousands of dollars (merely hundreds instead). But if Mike has another bout of ketoacidosis, we need to choose between financial destitution and maybe even the loss of our home in bankruptcy, or treatment of a condition that can lead to coma and then death. 1 in 10 cases of ketoacidosis end in death. In the past 9 years, Mike has had this condition twice (as a juvenile insulin dependent diabetic, type 1 - https://www.google.com/health/ref/Type+1+diabetes). The last time Mike developed ketoacidosis, he prayed a whole lot and managed it himself without going to hospital – knowing that if he did go to the emergency room, he would not be covered by our health plan. This is a daily reality for millions of people in the USA whether they have private insurance or not.
Any reform to the healthcare system needs to begin with tort reform. The financial judgements handed out to victims of errant health care providers are excessive and ridiculous. Millions are handed out for injuries that seem small and sometimes even self inflicted. Yes, there needs to be a system of compensation in place for such events, small or large – but there needs to be some limits as well. No-one deserves $2 million dollars for the mistake, as horrid as it is, of having 13 teeth extracted instead of three. http://www.thestate.com/crime/story/905995.html . And as distasteful and abhorrent as I find the actions of Aetna (a large HMO), the death of a man at age 44 after being denied appropriate medical coverage by his health plan is not worth $120.5 million dollars for his widow. http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=35136
Yes – compensation needs to be paid when things go horribly wrong, but there needs to be limits on such compensation. As the payouts go out, the premiums go up.
So, any debate, at least in our opinion, should begin with solid tort reform. People think that it is the health care providers (doctors and dentists etc) that are pocketing these high premiums we pay – in reality, it’s probably the lawyers!
We believe a 2 party system could work in America, and keep both the private funds happy, and the poor healthy. This is how the Australian system seems to work.
Firstly, there will always be abuses in every system, private or public. The mantra that ‘the government is incapable of running healthcare’ is a moot point, especially considering the private sector can’t run it properly either! There will never be a perfect system. The government already runs some form of socialized healthcare – medicare, VA – and yes, there are problems. But nothing we consider insurmountable with good, improved governance. At present, many are saying, “don’t let the government interfere with my healthcare, let them play around with our war hero’s and elderly instead”. We don’t understand why people are willing to put their faith and health in the hands of the private sector which answers only to shareholders, but not in their duly elected government representatives who are answerable to the people, and can be voted out at the next election!
As a funny side issue here, in a recent town hall meeting, a participant in the debate called out, “don’t let the government get its hands on my medicare”. Erm???!!!!!!
A basic level of healthcare, we believe, needs to be extended to all Americans and American immigrants, regardless of income, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or creed. If you have a heart attack, you need treatment without losing your home. If you have diabetes, you need ongoing care. If you break your arm, you need to have it set. In Australia, such a system is funded by a 1.5% tax levy on your income. This levy is means tested. So consider for a moment… you earn $75000 per year. You pay $1000 per annum for health care. I am paying close to that per month in the USA for sub standard healthcare that will still leave me destitute if things go more horribly wrong than just a broken arm.
On top of a basic system, you can have a private system as well. Australia also has such a system. You can choose a more comfortable standard of care (for instance, you can get a private room in hospital instead of a ward) if you are willing to pay for it. The Australian government offers substantial tax breaks and rebates for those who choose to pay for private health insurance.
Some of the arguments against a basic level of socialized health care puzzle me.
The argument that you cannot choose your own doctor. Well, if you attend an emergency room with a life threatening condition, you don’t choose your own doctor under the best private system in the world! You get whoever is on! In Australia, you choose your own General Practitioner. In England, you choose your own doctor in your local area under the NHS.
The argument that the have’s should not subsidise the have not’s is patently and absolutely unscriptural. Here is perhaps where we hold our strongest beliefs in this debate. We do not understand how the followers of Jesus can claim that they have no mandate to care for the least of these. Scripture cannot be more clearer in this regard. “…care of widows and orphans” “…what you do for the least of these you do for me”.
The argument that socialized medicine will cause the USA to become like Nazi Germany, or that death panels will adjudicate your life or death, is, to be frank, appalling. And if you have engaged in the use of such inflammatory statements, then shame on you.
The argument that socialized healthcare means that citizens and legal residents are paying for the care of illegal immigrants is again a moot point, and a topic for a different debate. How a country cares for its citizens and residents, and how it cares for its visitors and guests (legal or otherwise) should be separated. However, it is our opinion that in the very least, illegal immigrants seeking medical care should receive basic care, in particular regard to communicable diseases. Would you like someone with an untreated infectious disease to infect you? The way we treat others, regardless of immigration standing or country of origin, shows a care for humanity and basic human rights. However, immigration and healthcare are 2 separate (yet sometimes coinciding) debates.
The argument that the church should be responsible for caring for the least of these and not the government has 2 facets and sides. Firstly, yes, the church should. But the church doesn’t. And the church won’t (on a wide reaching scale). Yet we don’t believe that the bible’s prescription for caring for the least is for the church alone. It is a societal command. Care for each other. Leave no one behind. A nation that does not care for its poor is a poor nation.
The argument that my money shouldn’t help other people is again moot. For instance, we have a socialized road system (your money pays for other people to drive on the road). If your argument is as such, then your use of an interstate should be user pays. Every time you pay tax you are contributing to a social system. So why is healthcare any different? In our current system, the have’s are already paying for the have not’s. High premiums and medical costs are as they are in some part not just to excessive tort costs, but to cover the cost of indigent, uninsured and underinsured (like me and many others through no fault of our own) who cannot afford a doctor and do not seek medical help until they have become seriously and expensively unwell. This is an issue of public health as well.
We have a dual system at work in terms of education in this country. Public and Private… and we believe the same can exist for healthcare.
The United States is already a socialized country… with socialized roads, socialized education and much more. Socialized healthcare changes nothing in terms of who we are (and yes, we are now a ‘part’ of you – we’ll show you our green cards if you like!!).
That is our basic position on the subject of healthcare reform. Don’t hate us for it, or abuse us for it – that shows more about your character than ours. Do engage us in debate. Likewise, we covenant that we will not place our friendship with you aside should you disagree with us – even vehemently. And Bob, if you are reading this, we know by now you are foaming at the mouth – but we love you anyway! J
Now, as the title of this very long essay suggests, we wish to lay out the basic belief system of the United Methodist Church (as we understand it).
Firstly, the issue of healthcare is not just today’s hot potato. Rev. John Wesley was a passionate advocate of health care for all regardless of your ability to pay or not. In fact, Wesley himself spent much of his life in pursuit of this cause. This may surprise you, but none the less, it is true.
Wesley ran free health care clinics for the poor, dispensed medication, and wrote extensively on the subject. He did so because he despised the fact that the poor had no access to doctors or medicines. Thus the result of a user pays healthcare system. He even advocated higher taxes on the wealthy in order to support the poor.
John was at war with healthcare providers of his day, who were used to charging like a wounded bull for their services. They saw Wesley trying to undermine their greed and were angry about it. And the same continues today in America some 300 years later. HMO’s (stress – NOT ALL, but many) are all about money money money. It’s not about healthcare, it’s about the bottom line. It’s not about wellbeing, it’s about shareholders. And the modus operandi of many of these providers is to deny service to make more money. Wesley would still be appalled. Yet many in this country seem to think that this system is a fair and proper way to continue. http://archives.umc.org/umns/intlnews_archive.asp?mid=881&story=8494A02B-4F8F-4ED1-86DA-08125E50C0E5
The United Methodist Church, within which we are now clergy, has released a statement of social principle (Book of Discipline, 162/V, 2008) on the issue of healthcare. I believe this statement is absolutely infused with the spirit of Christ, and would have wholehearted endorsement from Wesley.
Are you (should you be United Methodist) free to disagree with the social principle of your church? Absolutely you are. We wouldn’t be who we are as a country or as a worldwide church without such. But none the less, below is what we say collectively as a church, having arrived at this position after much prayer and careful consideration. Let us leave you with it. Grace and peace to you.
Rev. Mike and Rev. Amy Rayson, Pleasant View TN – 1 September, 2009.
UMC Social Principle, 162 part V. Health is a condition of physical, mental, social, and spiritual well-being. John 10:10b says, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Stewardship of health is the responsibility of each person to whom health has been entrusted.
Creating the personal, environmental, and social conditions in which health can thrive is a joint responsibility—public and private. We encourage individuals to pursue a healthy lifestyle and affirm the importance of preventive health care, health education, environmental and occupational safety, good nutrition, and secure housing in achieving health. Health care is a basic human right.
Providing the care needed to maintain health, prevent disease, and restore health after injury or illness is a responsibility each person owes others and government owes to all, a responsibility government ignores at its peril. In Ezekiel 34:4a, God points out the failures of the leadership of Israel to care for the weak: “You have not strengthened the weak, you have not healed the sick, you have not bound up the injured.” As a result all suffer. Like police and fire protection, health care is best funded through the government’s ability to tax each person equitably and directly fund the provider entities.
Countries facing a public health crisis such as HIV/AIDS must have access to generic medicines and to patented medicines. We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services that will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. The right to health care includes care for persons with brain diseases, neurological conditions, or physical disabilities, who must be afforded the same access to health care as all other persons in our communities. It is unjust to construct or perpetuate barriers to physical or mental wholeness or full participation in community.
We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.
** please note. This essay is not written expressing the view point of the members of Palmyra United Methodist Congregation. Each member is free to believe that which they believe on this issue. Such belief does not, will not, can not, and shall not interfere with the pastoral relationship we enjoy with them in any way. This essay is our collective viewpoint, and is offered for the benefit of education and discussion.