A Faith Declaration for Health Care Reform
Over the course of the health care debate, voices of faith have been raised about the moral values at stake beneath the policy discussions. As bills are finalized and moved through both chambers of Congress, now, more than ever we need to remind ourselves of the values that move us to reform. From the Bill of Rights to the abolition of slavery, from women's suffrage to the civil rights movement, those who have raised the question of values have often changed our country for the better. Change can be scary in uncertain times, but always comes when the nation chooses hope over fear.
Unfortunately, God only sent Moses down from the mountain with Ten Commandments and not a health-care bill ready to be passed out of committee There is no one "right" religious position on how health care should look; but I believe there are some fundamental moral and even biblical principles on which to evaluate any final legislative agreement--principles on which many, even politically diverse, people of faith might agree. After the heat of the summer's confrontations over health care; it's time for a cooler fall debate. It's time for a re-set of the health care debate and a return to some basic principles could help.
Five Principles of Faith for Health Care Reform
1. Health, not sickness, is the will of God. We can see this from the story of the garden, in Genesis, where sickness never was, and from the vision of a city, in Revelation, in which death will be no more. When we are instruments of bringing about that good health, we are doing the work of God. The stories of Jesus healing people in the Gospels, of restoring people to physical wholeness and full participation in their community, always signaled God's presence.
2. United we stand, divided we fall. The division between those who can afford adequate coverage and those who cannot is a threat to our unity and a threat to the health of our neighbors and our nation. Forty-six million in our country are uninsured and millions more who are, still can't keep up with their bills. Our moral and religious standards say that no one should be left out of a system simply because they cannot afford good health. The common good requires a system that is accessible to all who need it.
3. Patients not profits. No one should be discriminated against in their health care because they are sick. Our faith mandates that we give extra consideration and help to those who are sick, but every time an insurance company denies coverage for "pre-existing conditions," excluded ailments, or confusing fine print, their profits go up. Every doctor I know decided to pursue medicine to help people. The health insurance industry makes a profit by not helping, but our faith requires it.
4. Life and liberty must both be protected. The health care system should protect the sanctity and dignity of life in accordance with existing law and the current rules; and the prohibition on federal funding of abortions should be consistently and diligently applied to any legislation. Strong "conscience" protections should be enacted for health care workers to ensure they have the liberty to exercise their moral and religious beliefs in their profession. Evidence suggests that supporting low-income and pregnant women with adequate health care increases the number of women who chose to carry their child to term, so if we do reform right, we can reduce abortion in America. While religious people don't all agree on all the issues of abortion, we should agree that it must not be allowed to derail the crucial need for comprehensive health care reform.
5. For the next generation, health care reform should be based on firm financial foundations. Health care is a vital and wise investment for the future of our families and society. But, the way we pay for it should be fair and equitable and seek to lessen the burden on succeeding generations--both in bringing everyone into the system and by bringing the costs of health care under control over time. Our religious traditions suggest that social justice and fiscal responsibility must not be pitted against each other, but balanced together in sound public policy that is affordable for individuals and for society.
So let us have the moral dialogue and debate--let's take the best of who we are, the greatest parts of our tradition, and use that to lead the way. The misinformation, falsehoods, and outright lies that have been circulating obscure the moral and religious core of this debate: that millions of people are suffering in an inequitable and inefficient health-care system, and that too many powerful people are profiting from that broken system in defiance of the common good. Perhaps the faith community could help model a more civil debate and find the sensible moral center that will help the country find the best solutions to the health of the nation.
To learn more about health-care reform, click here to visit Sojourners' Health-Care Resources Web page.
Jim Wallis is Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and the author of The Great Awakening
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
Laura Chapin: Colorado Republicans Abandon Social Issues
It remains to be seen if this political kumbayah can survive a divisive Republican primary. The intolerant wing of the Republican party is notoriously intolerant of its own candidates.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Conscience clause" has become a loaded term, and I see why it provokes reaction. Like any freedom, the "conscience clause" becomes contrary to public policy when it interferes with somebody else's rights and freedoms -- like the right to the best known health consultation and services.
Certainly the religious right wants to use such provisions to impose their beliefs on others. I'm not sure whether the author intended this meaning or not. So let's ask him:
Mr. Wallace: can you expand on what you mean on "a strong conscience clause" and the tension between health care providers and consumers?
This is why I've been a bit baffled at the Christians over this issue. Health care is a moral not an ideological issue. Why Christians are siding with the extreme far right on this doesn't make sense.
I'd like to hear someone explain how Jesus would be against health care reform.
How can so many "Conservative Christians" be against changing a system that is leaving so many of our neighbors uninsured? Or under-insured? Or lacking access to appropriate and adequate health care? Or going bankrupt due to medical issues?
Hey all you so-called Christians out there: matt 25:31-46!
(37) Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink?" (38) When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked, and clothe you? (39) When did we see you sick or in prison and go to you?" (40) And in reply the king will say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."
(41) Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, "Be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."
Enough said?
Absolutely no one who is for reproductive Choice is pro-abortion. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Good gynecological care and universal access to birth control will decrease the number of abortions in the U.S. However some abortions are needed to save the life of the mother, even though she wanted the child. We definitely ought to pay for those.
I really, really, really believe in birth control. I'll go further and say that as a nation, for our own good, we should pay for vasectomies and tubal ligations for anyone living here who wants one, even illegal immigrants. Then we should pay a reasonable amount to these patients for "lost work". If a druggie wants to get a tubal ligation and use the "lost work" pay to buy drugs, that's their choice. As long as they don't have an unwanted child who will need lots of extra social services that cost the rest of us money.
Thank you, memosyne.
There's no such thing as "pro-abortion," unless there are actually people walking around in this country thinking, "Wow, it sure would be great if we had a whole lot more abortions." I've never met anyone like that, and I'm pretty old. Abortion is a horrifying last-ditch choice which should be eliminated insofar as possible. I doubt that there are any women who have gone through it who look back on their experience with warmth and fondness.
However, the notion that outlawing abortion will bring the desired results is simple ignorance of social reality. Birth control and reproductive education are the keys as you suggest. Making abortion illegal will only ensure that even more bodies will be piling up (mothers and unborn children).
What about the beginning principle of honesty and integrity? This is something that no one has been able to reflect in this debate.
For the love of whatever unknown forces you believe in, this is not a Health CARE debate, this is an economic recovery through insurance reform debate.
This reform will not do one single thing to save a life or reduce suffering. It will only make it cheaper and easier to receive treatment that currently has about a 50/50 chance of making you worse than you started
"As you care for the least of these, so you care for me.", I suppose you could count this as the final word from Christ as to how we should care for the poor and sick.
Jim Wallis is typically mocked by the extreme right and the left. It's why we don't get anything done in this country. He's trying to find common ground, but there will always be those who want it entirely THEIR way or not at all. Judging from some of the comments here (not all but many), you'd think he was suggesting outlawing abortion, which isn't the case at all. He's written this for people who are evangelical christians in the middle that could be swayed to help with healthcare reform due to the values they are called to have in their Bible. But some of you are so embittered, you'd rather hurl insults at him and completely ignore what he's trying to do.
Newsflash: Obama was elected by religious and non-religious people. Atheists could not have gotten him in there alone. He did it by showing respect to people with different viewpoints.
That's fine.
But that doesn't give him permission to gut the first amendment for health care.
not even close.
and by the way, us Athiests beat every group in america besides roman catholics and protestants, and we're the fasting growing group in America. while those two are on the decline.
It's a brave new world friend.
So many odd things about your post.
First, Wallis says NOTHING in this article that threatens the integrity of the First Amendment. Where are you reading this? He's not saying that anyone should quote the bible in the legislation, for crying out loud! He's saying that if we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, then we must reform healthcare to the point where ALL sick are cared for... because that's what Jesus commanded his followers to do.
And you "Atheists beat every group in america [sic] besides roman catholics and protestants...." What does that mean? Beat them with what? And are you so unstudied in the history of the Christian church not to know that Catholics + Protestants = 99% of Christians in the US (you're only excluding Coptics and Greek Orthodox, I believe)? I would imagine the group you describe comprises much of the the 70% of Americans who declare belief in God (although that number certainly includes other faiths as well, such as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.). And I would wager that Agnostics outnumber declared Atheists... I have no figures to back that last bit up, it's just a hunch.
But then, your post doesn't have any figures to back up any of what you're saying either, so I guess we're even.
We know that but we are talking about "extremism" that has been stirred up by the right wing, and now that the "Racist Klan Genie" is out the bottle after forty years, the want to act like they didn't start the madness by trying to put "Church and State" together.
OIL AND WATER = BLOODSHED AND UNNECCESSARY WARS OVER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE THAT SANK ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE ROME.
NO THANKS!!
BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND OF THE PEOPLE. We aren't all sinners, just don't want to give the greedy caddy driving ministers who ignore the poor everyday, while preaching good summaritan hypocracy and greed.
I agree if someone gets knocked up without birth control, when there is plenty of jells cremes and foams on the shelf, they should pay for the abortion themselves. The and the anti-rubber wearing irresponsible in the century of AIDS partner.
If they want to play Russian Roulette with their private body parts, then make them pay for their indiscretions. If they have to have the child and still are showing no love for it, maybe 17 hours of labor and a trip to the orphanage will help as community service.
Me I like to pick a great tiam and win. When people fail to plan they plant to fail. I went through it and finally learned even though the world stereotypes you, you don't have to stereotype yourself.
Being responsible for bringing life, just one of the "adult things" showing maturity.
If the federal legislation refuses to allow certain legal procedures based on a single group's religious beliefs -- how is that different from allowing profit-making insurers to choose which procedures they feel like covering?
Suppose Methodists and Muslims wanted to exclude all medical treatment related to alcohol abuse (including the treatment of pancreatic and esophageal cancer)?
Suppose Methodists and like-minded Baptists wanted to exclude all medical treatment related to tobacco use (such as respiratory and cardiac conditions, including high blood pressure)?
It's NOT right for Catholics and others with a narrow view of human rights to impose religious restrictions on a federal law intended to protect those who cannot afford access to the medical system.
Christ repeatedly refused to be seduced by those who wanted him to impose their faith on the government. Romans 13:1-7 is pretty clear about that; as well as Matthew 22:17-21
Neither passage speaks of abortion. Each simply shows Christ's unwillingness to be drawn into the act of writing government legislation. That was one of Satan's wilderness temptations in Mathew 4 - to rule the world without the cross.
He came to transform individuals and to conquer their hearts - not their governments. Obviously, Christians will try to act in alignment with their faith when they are employed by government -- but they should not USE the government to IMPOSE their beliefs on non-believers.
Christ didn't. He wouldn't. He wouldn't want you and I to do that either.
It seems to me that #4 was referring to *individuals* being required to perform abortions rather than excluding them from the entire system, like allowing people to be conscientious objectors during war.
And what does that matter?
It's your job, you get paid in part because of large taxpayer subsidy, to do a job. Sure you have the right not to do it, but refusal to not do the job means you get fired in every other industry in the world.
Why should it be different here?
I can not come to work tomrrow because it goes against my religion, and boss can there fire me for it.
You had me going for a minute, Jim, but....
Item #4 is inappropriate and no different from the injustice of excluding patients because of pre-existing ailments which you object to in Item #3.
If the federal legislation refuses to allow certain legal procedures based on a single group's religious beliefs -- how is that different from allowing profit-making insurers to choose which procedures they feel like covering?
Like it or not, in this country abortions are legal medical procedures, and decisions about abortions are left to pregnant women, allowing them to consult doctors, clergy, and best friends as they see fit.
Health reform should NOT be a backdoor means of imposing abortion restrictions or other religious beliefs. Not all religions oppose abortion. Nor has the Supreme Court - yet.
while its true that abortion is and has been legal in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, it is equally accurate to note that the courts and the Federal government have consistently been reluctant to underwrite the cost of it. Like it or not, their approach has paralleled that of most insurance plans when it comes to cosmetic issues, and has treated it like an elective, legal medical procedure. Harbor no illusions that when universal health care is passed that it will mean low- or no-cost liposuction to the masses, either. Wallis' point is - like the President's - search for the common ground to avoid letting the divisive, emotional issue (abortion) derail momentum in reaching the goal (coverage for all)
Yes, because sticking with anything similar to the current system is a good idea. It's not like we're going bankrupt from it.
Oh no wait...we are.
Good for you sir.
Don't let the wolf in sheep's clothing of religion in one inch.
As an atheist, I am shocked by the narrow-minded comments of the non-believers below. Lets leave the narrow-minded intolerance to the fundamentalists, please. If somebody wants to use their religious belief to motivate others to do good, what's your problem? Save your indignation for when they try to impose their belief, which is all too common but not the case here.
It becomes a problem because of items like #4.
He's using his religion to help define federal health policy, and that is not cool.
Please get religion out of government.
Keep your religious traditions and faith-based care and use common-sense care instead:
Research and intelligence tel us that it is better to keep people healthy than to try to fix them after they get sick.
Experience tells us that most of us are one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy, so we need to have a policy that will cover everyone without breaking us.
Compassion makes us want to see that existing conditions do not keep people from getting the medical care they need.
Common sense tells us that if we plan to refuse to give people the medicine or care they need because god wouldn't like us anymore, we should go into another profession.
And yes, we need to find a way to pay for it--so get to work on that.
Here here!
So the author says the Bible provides a good moral framework for health care reform. Fine. He doesn't mention the Koran, the Talmud and the Tipitaka also contain moral precepts. All are openly revered in America. But that's not his job. So that's also fine. But then he says the Bible provides a moral authority for blocking federal funds for abortion. Whether or not it does is not the point. The constitution guarantees that government should be free from the influence of religion.
Instead of pieces like this, I'd like to see Biblical scholars tackling a more fundamental issue: Would the Biblical Jesus look at America and the world today and see justice?
"then he says the Bible provides a moral authority for blocking federal funds for abortionl"
I seem to have missed that line in Wallis' piece. Can you direct me?
I direct you to item #4
Tommy Douglas, the "Father" of the Canadian health care system, was an ordained Baptist
minister before he became involved in politics His theological orientation was one of social
justice as well as personal salvation, and the depth of his commitment led first to a single-payer,
government insured health care system in Saskatchewan that was adopted by the entire
country. He was also recognized as the greatest of all Canadians in a poll several years ago.
Jim Wallis, in this column, has eloquently re-stated the principles that our health care
was founded on.
And yet, social justice is not dependent on religion. So, lose the religion and keep the social justice.
Organized religion is just one of many frameworks for the delivery of social justice.
Unfortunately, it has been co-opted by those who have kept the 'religion' but chucked out the social justice.
Thank you for speaking up for sensible religious people. The crazy ones have had the floor for too long.
Hear, hear.
If religious people had sense there would be no religious people.
and people like you do more help to the right wing religious fanatics than even the likes of sarah palin and rush limbaugh. by making the case that it is impossible for religious people to have a voice within the progressive community, you help the right make the case that the left is hostile to people of faith and that has given them recruiting power to those who are more in the middle. Jim Wallis is a really good man who I guarantee you has done more to help others and the progressive movement than most on here, and you have a right to disagree with him, but your insults will only help further the divide that makes it impossible to get any legislation passed in this country.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
