Saturday, October 10, 2009

Report on Health care, 1993 edition

The apple cake tasted a bit dry, so I decided to go through my files to see if I could find the source sent to me in 1993 (3 different relatives). Didn't find it. But I did find a letter I'd written in 1993, when I was still a Democrat (but obviously catching on) to "The Lutheran" magazine about health care. It had a special report on Universal Coverage in the December 1993 issue which included 15 ethical values and principles. It reminds me of something I heard this summer from the Catholic priest who lectured at Lakeside on religion and the civil war. He said the churches had split up long before the regions went to war. In my letter I addressed the draft on sexuality (homosexual marriage and gay pastors), so you can see how long that's been dragging on. The ELCA hierarchy split from the people in the pew years ago.

First, I don't have the entire report--I apparently photocopied just enough to attach to my copy of the letter. But here's the gist--the classic leftist, cop-out. . . "Others are dying because we have too much." The specific phrase on p. 32 was, "When we see our brothers and sisters dying on Chicago's South Side due to the lack of prenatal care there's something wrong--because too many of us have too much."

Many Americans, including some minorities, immigrants and native Americans, have cradle to the grave government health care, food stamps, housing allowances and/or public housing and still, nothing is healthier for a baby or assures a climb out of poverty like having a married mother and father. (And first they have to make it through the birth canal, something the liberals don't necessarily support if it's an inconvenient truth.) Married parents--you would think that would be a natural for a church magazine to point out--it's a big deal in both the Old and New Testaments. Its imagery is the foundation of God's relationship with Israel, and Christ's relationship with the church. But no. More government reassignment of wealth is their plan. "The resources are available here--they just have to be redistributed. And we have to distribute them justly. . . Justice in the deepest most fundamental biblical sense refers to balanced relationships. Relationships between individuals, between individuals and community, between individuals an communities and their God. That's what I see in health-care reform. It's an attempt to do justice, to balance the relationships."

Now, I have no idea who Laurence O'Connell is (or was), but he was obviously reading Saul Alinsky, not the Bible, because there's nothing in the Bible about the government taking from one and giving to another and renaming it justice. Here's my letter, November 28, 1993.
    With the coverage given the disastrous sexuality draft in the December 1993 issue, it would be easy to overlook an equally suspect document--the Health Care 15 values and principles published on p. 31-34. Instead of placing personal responsibility for good health as the first principle, the task force put it as number 13. We would not have a need for such a document or billions spent on health care if it were not for abuse of alcohol, cigarettes, food and sexual behavior. Once those health problems, all of which are personally manageable, are set aside, we can afford the rest with pocket change.

    How can Laurence O'Connell decide it is ethical for me to pay the social and economic costs of someone else's abortion, drunk driving, obesity, STDs, or even failure to floss? Where are the Judeo-Christian values and traditions to back up rights with no responsibilities? He needs to study American religious history and see that it was the strength of the moral values of the Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians that pulled people out of poverty and degradation and cleaned them up, educated and sanitized them and pushed them into the middle-class (where they have forgotten that it wasn't government programs that got them there).

    Where is the justice in "redistributing" our resources? Hasn't socialism, which is what "redistribution" and "communal sharing of risks" means, shown itself to be a complete failure in Eastern Europe and the USSR in the past 80 years? Would O'Connell ever want to have a blood transfusion in a Russian hospital? O'Connell claims the 15 principles "resonate" with the Christian message (p. 32) I didn't hear a single jingle, clink or tone that sounded like the Gospel."
Note, the reason I didn't include Lutherans in my list of which religious groups pushed people into the middle class is that I was referring to the various "great awakenings" or revivals that swept the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries. For the most part, Lutherans stayed within their ethnic communities and just helped each other. I'm not a cradle Lutheran, but I don't recall them being a part of those revivals.

4 comments:

Marfis said...

Let me start at a point where I agree with you: As a general rule, it is economically and emotionally favorable for children to be born to married parents.
Further, I agree that exposure to regular religious practice is a good foundation for a good life and good citizenship.

Where I part ways with you is at the "personally manageable" statement. Despite the best intentions of some families, young people find themselves without emotional anchors. The abuse of alcohol, tobacco, food and sex often can be substitutes for meaningful emotional connections. In my own churchgoing experience I have not found a great deal of non-judgmental-getting-out-there-and-being-supportive to people who need the kind of help that I would like religious congregations to provide. The most publicly active churchwomen I have known (Matthew 6:5) have always reminded me of Billie Holiday's lament that "rich relations may give you a crust of bread and such. You can help yourself but dont take too much..."

Consequently, people most in need do not get from the Protestants you mention what they truly need, which is acceptance, a little empathy, and maybe, now and then, a shower and a place to sleep at night.

I hear what you're saying about "I've got mine and the fact that I have it doesn't mean that I hurt somebody else by having it," but what would you do with the people who have no homes, no supper? ...people who know no other way of life than alcoholic homes or abusive relationships?
What would you do with them? It is that question that gives support to Alan Grayson's remarks to which you referred on 10/1.

Norma said...

You must be at the wrong church. I'm sorry you've been judged. There's a lot of that going around and it certainly isn't limited to church goers. Just watch David Letterman judging Sarah Palin's faith and family.

We (UALC) have a very active ministry in the city (we're a suburban congregation), an active prison ministry, and now increasingly, programs for suburbanites who are out of work, substance abusers, alone, and/or elderly and frail. Just as sin knows no boundaries, and no classes, neither does misfortune.

There are many churches who would welcome you and put you to work. 90 days or your current position back.

Marfis said...

When I was a member of a suburban Protestant church I always wondered why that beautiful meeting room couldn't be used as a homeless shelter. The answer was that those people would make it dirty. Heaven forfend!

I'm all done with church groups, thanks. I found what I had looked for in church in a group of recovering alcoholics.

For the moment, let's leave David Letterman out of it. He never presented himself as a do-gooder.

Norma said...

Recovering alcoholics and their Al-Anon cohorts are some of the most accepting and non-judgemental people one can meet. I used to think if I had to move to a new town, I'd start there to find nice people. Church and clubs later.