Weighing In
I've been going back and forth about whether to address this
hot button issue or, as I so often choose, let the “crisis of the hour” pass
and resume life as I know it. Unfortunately, I just can’t remain silent any
longer. I am hurting. And when I’m
hurting I write. And I share what I write when it pertains to growing into a
greater understanding of living in community, specifically as God’s people.
So, a number of my friends have shared the video of Dave
Ramsey, Financial Peace author, discussing his take on why the Affordable
Health Care Act will bankrupt our economy.
And while I appreciate the points he makes, the tone and
delivery give me reason for concern, especially from an individual looked to and
trusted by so many Christians.
The language and tone were condescending and dismissive,
suggesting that those who support the Affordable Health Care Act are incapable
of simple math. I have a sensitive trigger for “us and them” language, where we
lump all people into categories, as Mr. Ramsey did by repeatedly raising the
alarm that “healthy people” will be forced to pay for “the sick people.” Ouch.
I realize that Mr. Ramsey and I differ fundamentally about
how taking care of “the least of these” should take place in the world, as we
live out our call to love one another as followers of Christ, however, one
thing we should always agree on is that we are called to care for one another,
especially those most marginalized, not further marginalize with divisive
language. Any time we lump all people of any category together, we are not
loving one another.
I will be the first to admit I am no policy expert or
economist, and I am certain there are provisions in this bill that would make
me cringe (as I’m certain there are in every bill in our very imperfect
system). But as one of those stupid, couldn't-pass-junior-high-math liberals who’s
out to take all the money away from the hard working rich people and give it to
the lazy no-good poor people, here are some of the things I consider…
Mr. Ramsey (and most
detractors of the health care act) spent a good deal of time brandishing the
words “communist” and “socialist,” known triggers for any cold-war era
American.
What I have a hard time with is that we already apply a
socialist mindset to one of our most established institutions … the American
education system. Why in the world would a nation that believes so
wholeheartedly in capitalism require that each child be educated equally
regardless of socioeconomic status, family situation or, often, desire to
obtain said education?
It is because universal education is seen as a “Cornerstone of our democracy.” We believe that as a nation, we benefit from an educated public. We
believe there is less crime and more opportunity when children are provided an
education.
After my brief years teaching English in a very poor and
transient community in California, I am the first to tell you, once youth reach
a certain age and refuse to hold up their end of the bargain, maybe we’d all be
better off just letting them quit. But we don’t. We believe that just being
there, having to take the classes and be present even if they fail every one of
them is better than having them on the streets. And we may be right. I don’t
want to be the person teaching that class, but it’s possible. So don’t think my
lily-white complexion means my rose colored glasses keep me from understanding
the reality of forcing people to receive a service they don’t want.
In many ways we have begun trying to apply a capitalistic
mindset to education through our focus on high stakes testing. But here’s the
thing, you cannot evaluate an organization in a capitalist manner without a
product. And in the American education system, the product becomes the
children.
In industry, when you are seeking to make the “best possible
product” you would seek out the best possible materials. You would not choose
the materials that needed a great deal of work before they could be shaped into
the final product. You wouldn't choose the damaged materials or the rotted
wood. (And do not even begin to doubt the pain I feel comparing kids to
materials and products and using language of “damaged materials” to describe
children, yet, when we apply capitalism to education that becomes a necessity.)
So the only way to make the ideal product is to control the
materials. We will never be able to control the messages provided by parents to
youth in the home or the home lives of said students (whether they have food in
their stomachs, rest, clothing, a ride to school, help with homework). We've
tried. We have breakfast programs and backpack buddies and clothing drives and
any number of supports, but none of that replaces the caring role of a parent
as partner and advocate. So, we’re never going to achieve the ideal of every school
producing the same product …unless we further socialize the system and take
kids out of their homes and turn them into little “future citizen” soldiers.
Now that isn’t a bit scary, is it?
And yet we still attempt, to the best of our ability to
provide a free and “equal” education for all (it is in the application of what
constitutes equal that I think we get tripped up). So why, why would a
capitalist country continue to pour resources, time, and energy into an
institution that can only fail by capitalist, consumerist standards?
Because we believe it is necessary for the health of the
nation.
If we believe that an
educated public benefits the whole of the country and that the right to an
education is a basic necessity for Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,
we believe that in some instances, a socialist system is beneficial.
We believe education is so essential to the functioning of a
free society that when we attempt to bring stability to war-torn, impoverished
areas of the world, we bring education. We believe education is the single most
important component to giving people the tools to make a living and contribute
to society.
But it’s not what we bring first.
What do we do first?
We treat the sick and provide basic health resources to
sustain life. Because if you’re fighting to live, if your family is plagued by
sickness and death, you are in no position to consider learning ways to improve
your existence. You are just merely trying to survive.
And while the health issues of third world countries and the
poverty stricken areas of the U.S. are drastically different, they are just as
life threatening.
But if we see health
care as so crucial to empowering a people to learn new ways to provide for
themselves in other parts of the world, how is it that when we translate it to
the health of the American people we see it as a privilege of those who can
afford it?
Yes, including all persons no matter the condition in the
equation will certainly raise the cost per person of coverage. However, if
those are the only variables we consider, there are current costs we are leaving
out of the equation.
Take a young woman with diabetes (And please do not blame her for her diabetes. The cheapest foods are often those that cause the worst health problems.) She makes just enough
money to not be eligible for any kind of assistance, but she cannot afford her
insulin, so she does not take it, which lands her in the hospital. The cost of
paying for her insulin would be far less than an ER visit. Yet, for many
uninsured, the option is to let their condition get bad enough to require ER
care, which is often provided regardless of ability to pay when life threatening. This is a HUGE drain on the healthcare system and we are already
paying that cost, as making up those losses is factored into the cost of care.
So in many ways “we” are already paying for “their” care.
There it is again. Us and them.
If I bring back the capitalist application from education and apply it to healthcare, what is the “product?” Services that
promote good health and provide cure for illness?
Currently, how do we obtain said product?
We visit doctors for checkups to ensure our overall health
and to treat us when we are ill or injured. These visits are dependent on our
ability to pay for the services even though we are often completely unaware of
the cost until the services are rendered.
What? Isn't the point of a capitalist system that providers
are to compete for business by offering better products at lower prices?
So, maybe health care already isn't exactly a capitalist endeavor.
Which is where the insurance equations come into play. Any
time you are trying to achieve an average, you cut out the outliers. In this
case, we cut out those who are the biggest and smallest drain on the system
(Oh, wait, I’m pretty sure insurers never turn down really healthy people, so
they are still included). We all pay a relatively similar amount for the
assurance that, in the event of illness, the insurance company will help cover
the cost of our care.
I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that health care
is already pretty socialized. Only thing is, we've cut out those who can least
afford to pay for their own care to benefit the larger group.
Like the kid not picked for the team because he runs slow,
we've eliminated those who will drag the rest of us down. And no amount of elective
charitable giving will make up the difference.
The reason I support
the health care act is because I choose the slow kid. I’m gonna run alongside
him because he is my brother. She is my sister. We are in this together. As a
nation, as a world, as the body of Christ.
“Whatever you did for
one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Jesus
Christ
I happen to believe
that translates to my politics. I’m okay if you don’t. But don’t assume I’m
uneducated or uncaring. I’m just not willing to protect what’s “mine” at the
expense of the “other” because I believe at my core that everything I have and
everything I am belongs to God to be used for the care of creation and to the benefit of all, and I believe that caring for health needs is pretty fundamental
to life.
Sonja, I appreciate your comments on this topic. It certainly is not an easy one to unravel. As a chiropractor, I see the health care debate in a slightly different light. Health problems are not caused by a lack of medications, access to timely medical care or "bad genes". In fact, our heath care system is the 4th leading cause of death - mostly attributable to adverse drug reactions. My kids' generation is the first in the history of this country to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.
ReplyDeleteHealth problems are caused by lifestyle choices that we make day in and day out. Kids learn poor lifestyle choices from their parents. When they succumb to diseases like diabetes due to poor lifestyle choices, doctors give them medications, but do little to address the underlying "cause" of the disease. We've created a chemically dependent society that is constantly waiting for the new "miracle drug" instead of examining their own choices - as if disease is something that attacks from the outside and we're helpless to do anything about it.
As I said in the beginning, this is not an easy topic to unravel and I could type for another 17 hours on this topic, but I believe the answer begins with personal responsibility, not with legislation, increased access and increased spending. Is it the government's job to take care of "the least of these" or can that be done more efficiently by faith-based organizations?
Cont ...As to the debate about whether medicine is the “answer” I tend toward a balance of both medicine and lifestyle. I realize the example I used was that of a diabetic, and in many instances diabetes is a result of lifestyle choices. However, I don’t agree that all of medicine pushes drugs and ignores lifestyle.
DeleteMy children’s well-child visits both track their physical, social and emotional development as well as serve as an opportunity for my pediatrician to take stock of our lifestyle choices via a questionnaire we fill out. She then coaches me and/or my child based on the information provided (how many fruits/veggies we eat, how often the family eats a meal together at the table, how much takeout/fast food, servings of water/milk/juice/pop/Gatorade, etc./how much screen time/how much physical activity.) The only element that is medical are our vaccinations. I realize we probably disagree fundamentally about vaccinations, but I can live with that (as long as you don’t bring your unvaccinated child who has caught whooping cough to my school, wink).
On the other hand, I have struggled with anxiety most of my adult life. It is a pervasive anxiety that does not respond to diet/exercise/rest/lowered stress. It just sits on my chest as if at any moment I’m going to take the biggest test of my life, even when there are no stressors present. I become angry and snappish with everyone around me and just want to vanish I’m so ashamed of myself. Medication has brought me relief and allowed me to be a contributing member of society. Do I think my anxiety is entirely inherited? No. I spent many years living under the constant scrutiny of an adult parental figure, trying my best to no “trigger” an outburst that would lead to me being the outcast member of the family for weeks on end until, for no particular reason, I was all of a sudden accepted again. I believe there was conditioning of my nervous system during that time that led to my current anxiety. A PTSD of sorts. No, I don’t believe it is unresolved emotional baggage about the trauma because I have explored the issue ad nausea to the satisfaction of therapists. It just is.
My mother and my grandmother both also struggle with depression/anxiety. The choice to medicate was certainly not easy for them in a time when mental illness was hugely stigmatized, and it was only the gentle guidance of my grandfather that kept my grandmother continuing to seek care. I appreciate the position that genes do not determine our health entirely, but once again, I am not willing to say they play no part at all. In fact, I suspect many, many illicit drug dependency issues are at root mental illness undiagnosed and the ramifications for the children those parents care for become health problems down the line.
Erik, Thank you for your response and the kind tone of your comments. To answer your question, “Is it the responsibility of religious ‘organizations’ to take care of the least of these?” My answer would be no. I believe that religious institutions should serve only as meeting places and as conduits for the actions of what is, truly, the church, the body of Christ, its people. And as the body of Christ I believe we bear the responsibility to care for the least of these …Without determining first whether they are deserving of said care. Our job is just to continue to extend ourselves in love and service, and sometimes that comes through advocacy for needs.
ReplyDeleteCont. 2 ...Do I think we have a long way to go for medical professionals to begin coaching all of us on lifestyle changes as well as providing access to medicine when necessary? Yes.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that just not providing access to medicine to persons who cannot afford it will get them to live a healthier lifestyle? No.
I am beginning to see greater efforts from my insurance company to provide access to lifestyle related information and coaching as they begin to anticipate insuring all Americans.
Maybe, by including everybody, we will actually end up with a more balanced approach to health care.
In the meantime, people still have heart attacks, people still go into diabetic shock, people still have life-threatening cancer, and people still get in car accidents or other trauma-related injury and need medical care to put their bodies back together again before we can begin to talk about lifestyle. And kids are born with birth defects that result in lots of necessary treatment, often not covered as preexisting conditions.
And if we are really going to talk about lifestyle than we need to figure out how healthy food can be more accessible than junk. But that, also, might take government intervention and it also might challenge our free enterprise. So it is certainly not simple, something on which I think we agree.
Do I think there needs to be balance? Yes. Do I think excluding an entire population of people from the equation will achieve balance? No.
But I do believe that we, as a nation, are a sum of our parts. We are no healthier than our least healthy member. So, as long as we insist that each person is responsible for themselves only, we will be less than our potential.
Wow! You are well written. Excellent and thought provoking for this republican Christ-follower and thinker. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading, Andy, and for reposting!
ReplyDelete