How Should We Then Insure

I must admit that my heart has been heavy the last few days.  I spent the two days before the House vote on the health care bill reading the reconcilliation and amendments package.  I spent the two days after the vote continuing to read and gaining as much clarity as I could to what has now been voted into law.  Yesterday and today I have been reading through my favorite blogs and listening to a variety of talk shows and reading the local paper for how people are reacting to the legislation and I find myself torn on how to respond.  I see that both sides of the argument have some legitimate concerns (where the people expressing their views on the legislation are legitimate in their arguments).

On the one side, people are concerned about how difficult it is for individuals to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families;  how it is difficult for small businesses to offer company-wide health plans for their employees because they cannot buy into the larger market plans; how pre-existing conditions and the current state of rising health care costs are a major area of concern for the general public.

On the other side, people are concerned about how liberty is being usurped by the legal requirement that individuals must purchase a product from a private entity; how small businesses are being required to provide company health plans under threat of fine or penalty; how the experience of history shows wide ranging social plans administered by the government have all ended up bankrupt and the economic factors suggest the plan is doomed to failure before it begins.

As one who has done his best to read and understand the bill as it currently stands, I believe in many areas there is not enough information to adequately argue one way or the other.  A few examples:

1) The contention has been made that if individuals like their current coverage they can keep it.  Opponents say the bill will make it impossible for individuals to afford to keep their current coverage whether they like it or not.  In the text of the bill, all health care coverage carried by individuals and offered by employers must be Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP)s.  Specific coverage offered by a QHBP is to be stipulated by the Secretary who is appointed by the President upon passage.  So, really at this moment no one knows what even constitutes a QHBP.  Until that is determined, making any kind of determination about current plans must be held in abeyance.

2) The contention has been made that health care costs will decrease as a result of the enactment of the legislation, while opponents charge the bill will drive health care costs up and bankrupt the nation.  In the text of the bill, the rates and methods of determining the rates for health care plans, like the make-up of a QHBP is to be determined by the Secretary upon passage of the legislation.  So, again at this moment no one really knows whether nationwide health care costs will go up or down.

I realize that everyone can make an assumption as to what these unknowns might be and then project outcomes, but at this point it is simply unknown.  More important to me is the emotion that is present on both sides and what the Christian response should be (where responses will be honoring and glorifying to God).

I'm going to throw out some questions that have crossed my mind in the last few days and maybe some of you others who have read the legislation or are also seeking to give some really good answers can help me out.  I already know how i've answered these questions, but i'd like some additional input.

1) Is this whole health care and insurance topic a bi-product of the affluence of our society?

2) Is there a point at which a man can tell another man he must help his neighbor?  Does loving one's neighbor as oneself apply just to the follower of Christ or to everyone?  Does the United States' embrace of a secularized mindset have any bearing on this question, i.e. is the Church the only group who ought to love their neighbor as themselves?

3) Where do personal responsibility and accountability to God cross with the ideas of "general welfare"?  What I mean by this, is the founders of the nation continually used the phrase "by the dictates of his own conscience" for the governance of an individual's behavior, does that concept still stand today?

4) When we speak of insurance, at what point are we beginning to point people to the government or an agent instead of to Almighty God?  Put another way, when do we as a nation begin to see our days here on earth and those can provide temporally for our needs as those in whom we put our faith?

5) Is there a way for believers in Christ to be set apart as unique in this environment so that we will be seen as different and be curious as to how they can change to be more like us (which is to say more like Christ)?  In other words, what opportunities for witness and evangelism are available in this tumultuous time?

I appreciate any thoughts as I believe the issues are deeper than just the 90 seconds they are typically given on news and talk shows.  Thanks in advance for Godly wisdom and input. 

What's It All About

I read this article in the local paper today and found myself wondering how someone could make such a statement.  Speaker Pelosi commented, when questioned about the dissention present even within the Democratic party concerning the language and logistics of monies going toward abortion in the current version of the health bill, "This is not about abortion" and "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans." 

The temptation in light of comments like those it to go after Speaker Pelosi, but the real discussion needs to take place in the real of ideas and foundational beliefs.  I asked myself immediately how one could seriously suggest, after members of one's own party affiliation say quite clearly that they will not vote for the bill because of the current language regarding abortion, that the bill is not about abortion.  If the bill had nothing at all to do with abortion, then all language that hinted at abortion could be removed.  If the bill had nothing to do with abortion, then not one single dollar would need to be appropriated to anything related to abortion.  The fact is the bill does contain language and assigns dollars to abortion.

I wish that it were in fact the case that abortion had nothing to do with this bill.  The fact is that the bill is about abortion.  It is about the national economy.  It is about American liberty.  When a bill is proposed as "health care overhaul" or "health care reform" it is by definition about all issues of health care and all the intended and unintended consequences stemming from passage of that bill.

What I believe comes through loud and clear is the post-modern mindset that has pervaded the American mind today.  Speaker Pelosi was in effect saying, was "This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans to me." (additional words and emphasis mine).  Post-modern thought would tell us that the individual defines the terms and definition and truth of an issue.  For Speaker Pelosi the health care bill is just about making every visit to the hospital a small cost for anyone, no matter who crosses the threshold of the health care provider, so that's all the bill is about.  For another person, however, the bill is about abortion.  For another it is about ecomonic concerns (how do we pay for it all).

Our culture tells us that an issue is only what we make it to be, each individual is sovereign over the truth of an issue.  Obviously this is not the case.  With a bill taking more than two thousand pages to cover, the health care bill is about a great many things.  What inevitably happens in the post-modern mindset is a reductionism.  We are going to completely overhaul the health care system of the United States of America, it takes a 2000 page bill to begin to address the issue and yet it is simply "...a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans." 

Whether the bill passes or not, whether it will be helpful or not, whether it will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish or not I cannot say; prediction is terribly difficult, especially prediction about things in the future.  What is certain is that the bill is about abortion.  Up to and until all language and all appropriations for the funding of abortion procedures is removed in their entirety is removed from the bill, it will continue to be about abortion, along with a host of other issues.  We should at least confront the truth.  Push the bill anyway, confirm that the bill does concern abortion and that the President, his cabinet, the House and Senate supporters are all aware of it and demand its passage anyway and at least an honest vote can be taken.  At this point we are left to ask, what is it about the abortion issue that is so devisive?  Why are there those in the democratic party so opposed to a bill they have admittedly pledged to support except for this language?  Why are all the questions regarding abortion being asked?  I think most know the answer to those questions and that it's clear the issue is about abortion.

New Year, Same Concern

I purposefully wanted to begin the New Year with a post on a topic that is both controversial but also current and important, namely abortion.  Many strong stands are being taken with regard to the comprehensive Health Care bills and the debate over possibilities and variations on inclusion, funding and scope of abortion in the United States under the new Health Care bill.  For my part, I have not read the House or Senate Bills in their entirety, although not for a lack of trying.  In both cases I attempted to download the document from the government website and read for myself, but the file was so large that it took over 60 seconds for my screen to refresh every time I scrolled down on a page or clicked to a new page.  I simply didn't have the time.  I say that to say that I cannot speak to the specific language in the Bills, so I won't, i'll just tackle the issue of should abotion be funded by taxpayers.

My answer is simply put in a previous post on this site entered on October 5, 2009 entitled "Justifiable Homocide?"  The excerpt is as follows:

"What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person."

Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions because abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human person.  For me, the money involved the number of people in favor of or against the bill, results of poll data, other points in the bill that are important, or the necessity to get something done because the medical system is flawed have nothing to do with whether killing the unborn is right or wrong.  We don't even ask that question much any more.  Is it right to do?  It seems more and more the only questions asked are, "Can it be done?" or "Do a majority of Americans agree with doing it?"  If we go down that road and make decisions based on pure pragmatism, utilitarianism or majority rule then history has already taught us where it all ends.

With respect to governmental role in the matter, I think it far oversteps any bounds ever laid out for the Legislative, Judicial or Executive branches.  I don't even see a need to debate the question of whether the government should be allowed to force anyone in the United States by rule of law to participate in an activity they find morally wrong.  I suppose if it is passed those who have for so long called themselves pro-choice will have to change their position to pro-mandate.  In any case, I am more concerned about what happens when you take this to its logical conclusion.  If we judge what is acceptible by what is passed into law, i.e. it's right because the government says so, then where does that leave all other moral issues.  I was amazed to hear in President Obama's speech (in which he condemned the violence against protesters in Iran) say that the protesters were only trying to exercise their universal right to protest for freedom.  "Universal right".  This used to be an inalienable right, something given by God to all those He created in His image and likeness.  Do we now believe the universe gives us the right of freedom?  What will we say next, that it is a global right?  How about a secular governmental right? 

Whether funding for abortion is actually included in the final Health Care bill that is voted on and if passed sent on to the President for his signature is yet to be seen.  I belive that abortion is wrong.  The unborn are innocent human persons whose lives should be protected just as the lives of toddlers, young men and women, adult men and women and the elderly should be protected.

It is a New Year but this issue and my concern over it remains the same.  I continue to pray that the truth will be clearly seen and that more and more we will work to stop the damage we are doing in destroying so many human lives.