Taking a page from Scripture’s 40 days in the desert, a consortium of faith groups, led by Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, is promoting “Forty Days of Health Reform” as a political campaign stressing the moral necessity of enacting meaningful health care reform in America. Will that campaign appeal to people of faith, or backfire in religious communities? And what do you think of the option for a public option?
Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church
I am not sure who the Sojourners are, or what they hope to achieve, but their site is vague enough in message and tone to be political. Thus the 40 Days in the Desert metaphore doesn’t seem to be a particularly good idea. …” faith groups” … “the moral necessity of enacting meaningful health care reform in America.” “Moral necessity?” What does all that mean? Is this a rerun of William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold? I don’t get it.
However, what I do get is the health reform bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It delegates to the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the “public insurance plan.” Also some federal funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of most abortions. Americans who purchase the “public option” will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage.
Lois Capps the California Democrat whose amendment allowing the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds was OK’d by the committee–denies this. However the Catholic Bishops of America have expressed serious concern that the Energy and Commerce measure delegates to the secretary of Health and Human Services the “power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the ‘public insurance plan.”‘ The Catholic bishops’ concern is real due to the fact that the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which prohibited insurers from being required to cover abortion, unless the woman’s life is at risk or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, lost in committee. Considering the abortion stance of the current HHS Secretary it is reasonable to predict that broad abortion coverage will be mandated. We don’t need to go out into the desert on a sojourn to figure that out.
Bill Bogard–Jewish
Rather than explain in my own words why I support a universal, affordable, comprehensive Health Care Reform, let me quote my Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and allow the reader to study their web site at
http://www.jewsforhealthcarereform.org/. They, of course, will do a better job examining this complex issue and the moral imperative and religious basis for the support of this public policy issue.
Here is part of what the site states:
“Enough! What could and should have been a thoughtful debate on how to repair our broken health care system has been hijacked. Instead of real debate, we have political hooliganism. For the sake of our democracy, we cannot, we dare not, stand on the sidelines. It is time to get in the game, to reclaim the agenda and to demonstrate that concerned Americans will not be cowed. It is time for “Jews for Health Care Reform.”
Why “Jews For Health Care Reform”?
Because a Jewish voice for universal, affordable, accessible health care must be heard.
Because we care for justice, and a system that leaves millions of us uninsured and millions more underinsured is not just. Jewish tradition teaches that an individual human life is of infinite value and its preservation supersedes almost all other considerations. It’s that simple, and that crucial.
And because of self-interest, too: The Jewish population is considerably older than the general population and much more dependent on a system that is both efficient and effective. Our current system fails on both counts.
We must raise a Jewish voice for universal, affordable, accessible health care.
Can we afford the repairs the reformers—foremost among them President Obama—seek? The more pertinent question is whether we can afford to maintain our current broken system. Nearly one in four Americans under the age of 65—some 64.4 million people—will spend more than 10 percent of their family income on health care in 2009. This is not sustainable. It means not only bankruptcy for millions of us; it means bankruptcy for the nation.
We must raise a Jewish voice for universal, affordable, accessible health care.
In addition to the private insurance system, there must be a public option. Just as both Medicare and the Veterans Administration hospitals deliver quality care at lower cost than the private system – and do not refuse service on account of “pre-existing conditions” – a public option available to all Americans would be a safety valve for the nation, for all Americans. It would help rein in the explosive rise in insurance costs that America’s people and businesses have been forced to bear.
For 3,000 years, the Jewish people have been bearers of a message of justice and fairness for all that has reshaped the world. In the great health care reform debate of 2009, that message needs to be sounded powerfully and by joining with Jews throughout the nation, you can assure that voice will be heard.”
Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities professor
I find Dr. Bogard’s quotation from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism to be very interesting–especially in the way it describes Jewish moral philosophy. However, as a rhetorician, I must comment on the use of one word that is slightly disingenuous. When pro-health care reform advocates refer to a “public” option, what are they really saying? They are saying, in code language, a government option. Now, if you are for the government running the health care system, fine (although I personally might think you are crazy). But let’s call a spade a spade, and not try to trick the public with linguistic equivocation. Let’s do away with the lie of referring to a “public” option, when what is really meant is a ”government” option. Once we use the correct terminology, only then can we debate the issue honestly.
