Check out the op-ed titled Would God back universal health care? by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas over at USA Today. Thomas is a Baptist minister, constitutional lawyer, former General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, and former Special Counsel for National Council of Churches. He most notably helped draft the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Here’s Thomas:
Mixing church and state might be inexcusable, but the influence of religion on our political views is inevitable. Accordingly, the First Amendment does not prohibit laws that reflect our religious values as long as those laws have a secular purpose and effect. So it is curious that, until recently, little has been written about the moral dimension of the health care debate
…Perhaps the truest thing I can say about the God of the Bible is that he is for the poor. Not just a little. God appears to be for the poor in a way that he is for no other. Because a disproportionately high number of the uninsured are low-income, knowledge of this simple fact is critical to our views on health care reform. And please don’t take my word for it. The Hebrew Scriptures command that a certain amount of farm produce be left behind for the poor, forbid interest from being charged on loans and forgive the debts of people at seven-year intervals.
Such “care” extends to health care. The legendary Jewish scholar and physician Maimonides listed health care first on his list of services that a city should offer its residents. According to Rabbi David Saperstein (described by Newsweek as the most influential rabbi in America), the ancient Jewish commitment to provide health care to all God’s children stems from the Torah’s teaching that an individual human life is of infinite value. “A little lower than the angels,” as the Psalmist puts it. Quoting Leviticus, Saperstein says, “We are constantly commanded not to stand idly by the blood of our neighbors.”
Christians find similar teachings in the New Testament. One of Jesus’ most famous parables is about health care. A Samaritan traveler happens upon a seriously wounded man lying by the side of the road. The Samaritan attends to the man, dresses his wounds and pays a substantial sum for his care and recovery. Jesus ends the story by telling his hearers to “go and do likewise.” At the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus adds final instruction to those who might have lingering doubts about their responsibilities to their uninsured neighbors: “Love one another as I have loved you.”
So tell me, do you suppose Jesus would make a person choose between food and medicine?
Good stuff. Make sure to read the entire article. Here’s the link.
The problem with liberal fruit cakes like the author and you yourself is that you haven’t proven why those of us who have health care should have to give up what we have so the poor can have some. Surely to God as much as Dems love to spend money they could come up with a system that gives the uninsured some coverage while leaving the rest of us alone. The fact is they want to take away what we have because we have it and they don’t want us to have it.
What we need is a good old fashioned civil war–Americans verses the libs.
Oh, and it’s pretty interesting how this “minister” cites not one single shred of biblical evidence that says “We have to take healthcare from those that have it so that those without it can have some”. Of course, mainstreamers don’t believe the Bible so that makes sense.
Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla
Joey, you are wrong. Obama has repeatedly said that those that are happy with what they have can keep that. No change necessary. But lets find some way to reign in the skyrocketing costs, which in 30 years have gone from 1/12th of the economy to 1/6th. And lets find a way to cover more of those who do not now have any coverage.
“Obama has repeatedly said that those that are happy with what they have can keep that. No change necessary.”
Only technically true – a nice illusion.
You can only keep your plan as long as “the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benfits” after the new system goes into effect (H.R. 3200, Sec. 102(A)(1).
Meanwhile the gov’t will offer it’s subsidized plan — but your insurer is prohibited from changing to compete in price. Your employer (which specifically includes churches), wanting to save money, can simply stop offering your plan and switch to the gov’t option.
After a 5 year grace period, all private plans must by law offer the same “essential benefits” as the gov’t plan. So your plan will change, possibly adding unsubsidized costs; can your insurer afford that?
Also, if you have a high quality expensive plan, Congress now plans to tax it as income.
So HR 3200 creates 3 kinds of tremendous pressure: (1) for employers to stop offering your current plan; (2) for insurers to stop offering your current plan; and (3) to make your private plan too expensive for you.
This is my best understanding, which may be wrong — and there are more limitations inlcuding a 5 year grace period for your current plan to “qualify”.
It’s a trade-off.
And we are not getting enough information on it.
Well that depends on whose bill you are looking at. Obama’s public plan was not to be subsidized, other than some start up costs. But others may be doing things differently. I think that Obama was setting goals, not policies, and waiting for Congress to work out the details, which is where the devil lives.
Interesting graph comparing health care as a percentage of GDP of industrialized nations.
http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=45110
The US spends the most (even without universal health care), 16.2% of GDP in 2007 according to one source.
This report
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba654
has costs growing to 30% of GDP by 2040 and 50% of GDP by 2082.
Containing costs, and keeping people healthier, should be priorities.
Details here are rocks v. hard places!
The only parameter I know that Pres. Obama has set is “don’t increase the deficit.” But all the proposals so far do increase it. So new taxes are on the way.
I hope folks continue their church offerings and charitable giving to those in need. Healthcare reform would be a Pyrrhic victory if charities for the needy — including charitable hospitals — suffer from reduced reimbursements, reduced corporate and private donations, and increased gov’t restrictions.
There is nothing noble or Jesus-like in using OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, and stands for other people’s money)to succor the poor or buy them health care. The minister is unwilling or unable to solve the problem himself, so he wants the government to do his dirty work, take the money from taxpayers and give it to the poor. There is also a possibility that his church or sect would get some of the loot since there are plenty of “faith-based initiatives” involved in providing health care for the poor with funds stolen by the government. George W. Bush and his Republican congress were responsible for corrupting many religious organizations by sucking them into the business of distributing stolen tax dollars to “the poor.” For an article on Obamacare, go to: >http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/JESUS_ON_OBAMACARE.html<
Ned,
First, Christians believe that everything we have, including the ability to earn, is a gift from God. So it is not OURS but HIS.
Second, the Biblical concept of justice, both national and individual, is that those who have resources and to take care of those who are unable or less able to care for themselves. This comes in many places in the OT and check out Matthew 25 for Jesus’ statements on the importance of social justice.
Third, most poor people are getting care — not preventative, but emergency and critical care — at great expense to everyone else, because it jacks up the prices for everyone else. Putting us all into a system that would provide some preventative care would reduce costs overall.
BTW, rich people get more protection from the government and generally more government services, so should pay more. Were it not for government, the poor would relieve them of the burden of their wealth directly, perhaps at the cost of their lives.
Joey,
You say the article “cites not one single shred of biblical evidence.” Do the citations from Leviticus, the Psalms, and Matthew 25 not count as Biblical evidence? Or did you not recognize them as Biblical?
It’s kink of funny, in a pathetic way: at the first church I served, a conservative, rural church in northeastern North Carolina, I once preached on Matthew 25: 31-46. For at least 50 years they had had a steady diet of get saved, get saved, get saved every Sunday, and most (all?) of them had no idea Matthew 25 even existed. They looked incredulous, they were checking “their” Bibles to make sure the passage was really there (and I preached it from the KJV), and murmuring–and that was just from the Scripture reading. To their credit though, at the next deacon’s meeting, the chairman brought it up (no prompting from me at all–in fact, it caught me by surprize), and when the meeting was over, they had established a fund to buy prescription drugs for those in their little community unable to afford them.
And “an old fashioned civil war”? Well, the liberals won the last one, despite the best efforts of most of my kinfolks, thanks be to God.
John
http://baptistperspective.brucegourley.com/2009/07/health-care-debate-and-tommy-douglas.html
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Health Care Debate and Tommy Douglas, Greatest Canadian of All Time
Few Americans may realize that a Baptist minister is recognized by Canadians as the “Greatest Canadian of All Time.” Tommy Douglas, who died in 1986, is one of history’s most influential Baptists that few outside of Canada know. And here in the summer of 2009, Douglas’ legacy is extremely relevant to the biggest issue facing Americans: health care.
Tommy Douglas, you see, was the man who brought about Canada’s universal public health care system, a health care system which Canadians for several generations now have chosen to pay extra taxes to operate and maintain, and a health care system which 91% of Canadians today view as superior to America’s health care system. Furthermore, Douglas set Canada on the road to universal health care during the Great Depression, while here in America today President Obama is seeking to do the very same thing during the current Great Recession.
Douglas, a minister turned politician, first became personally aware of the moral imperative of health care when as a child he almost lost his leg to a disease because his family could not pay for treatment; only by the good graces of a doctor, who offered his medical services for free, was Douglas’ leg saved. Influenced by the Christian principles of the Social Gospel while in collge, Douglas pastored for several years before entering politics during the Depression in 1935, becoming the Premier of Saskatchewan in 1942. He remained a leading politician in Canada for many years, consistently advocating for universal health care and basic human rights. Under his leadership, the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights was enacted. And while securing public health care for all citizens, Douglas paid off government debt and created a surplus.
Although today most Americans want a public health care option, we as a nation are slow to the table in responding to the moral imperative of basic universal public health care (although a number of presidents, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, have personally supported public health care). If we as a nation this year do manage to place human life above the greed-driven free market health insurance industry by enacting a public health care option, we have Tommy Douglas to thank, one of the greatest Baptists of the past century.
Posted by Bruce Gourley at 7:00 AM
Labels: baptist, government, greed, health care, insurance, Teddy Roosevelt, Tommy Douglas
R.E. Cooper, Your first point, that everything is His, which you refer to as a Christian belief, actually originated with the Jews and is clearly stated in Psalm 24:1 : “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it.” That, of course is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he bamboozled those “spies” sent by the chief priests and Pharisees to “trap him in speech.” (Luke 20) As Luke’s recounting of the incident demonstrates, their intent was to get Jesus to publicly condemn Caesar’s tax, as they knew he would since taxation is accurately described as extortion sanctioned by the state, which immunizes its collectors from prosecution. And condemn it he did, by saying give Caesar (what is his) nothing. Jesus obviously would endorse his Father’s unequivocal command, “Thou shall not steal,” and condemn Caesar’s thieving tax. I find it rather unseemly when people calling themselves Christians endorse stealing perpetrated by their state agents on their behalf. Such behavior is one reason I long ago gave up on the Christian religion to become a disciple of Jesus.
BTW, your comment, “Were it not for government, the poor would relieve them of the burden of their wealth directly, perhaps at the cost of their lives,” is a slanderous indictment of “the poor,” with no basis in fact nor in any logical theory. It shows a very low regard for the integrity of the poor.