40 Days of faith on health reform
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.”
“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.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Dr. Wallerstein:
I have no great objection to substituting “government” for the term “public” in regard to health care reform now being discussed, any more than I have any objection to the substitution of the term “government” in place of “public” as in “Government Park,” “Government utilities” (water and sewer, etc), or “Governmental schools and universities.” But then I don’t find the term “government” a necessarily derogatory word: I attended a “government” high school, I taught at a “Government University” for 30 years, I go to a “government” VA doctor and medical system, I enjoy a “government” medicare system, and I drive on a “Government” highway system. Hopefully, where I live in Florida most of the time, I hope to see a much improved “Government transportation system.” And my “private” physician and his system are deeply regulated and financed by the “Government.” So, I’m not fearful of that term. The difficult and complex question before our nation is the structure of a health care system that we as a society should create for the future–a system that serves all the people, that makes our nation competetive with all other industrialized nations, and keeps the costs as least burdensome for all as possible. Whether this system is “Public, “governmental” or some combination of the the two is the task before us. And a rational discourse is necesary.” Charges of “Death Panels” and other such nonsense will not help us meet this challenge.
August 20th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Bill,
What is interesting is that you don’t see the irony of what you are saying. Take all those government-run entities and programs you rely on: parks, utilities, schools, universities, VA doctors, medicaire, highways, transportation. First, what the heck is the government doing involved in all that? Second, think how much better, more efficient, cost-effective they would all be if they were run by private companies!
August 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
…and long-winded ones, at that.
Do you usual posters ever consider just not taking the bait from each other?
And while I’m at it, have any of you ever heard the term, pithy? Or perhaps, consise might ring a bell?
Save some of the homilies for church already; the rest of us stop reading after the umpteenth paragraph of either ad nauseum or ad hominem coming from you again and again and again and again. And again.
(By the way, Nicholas, re your post just above this…playing the Devil’s Advocate was not really a well-liked or much-admired position, back in the day. I often wonder why people think they are being clever when they do it on purpose.)
August 20th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Nicholas:
You said I don’t see “the irony” of what I’m say. May I reply that I don’t see how you don’t see the “madness” of what you are saying.
We’ve had this discussion before, of course, and I’m still amazed that you still maintain such an extreme position. While, for example, I may find a place for an “Autobahn” at times, I doubt that many–including myself–wish the road in front of my house and the main street through my town to become a toll road to be paid for by users each time they drive or walk. And yes, while I see a place for Parodchial grade and high schools, public schools since the beginning of our nation have served a place to bring various immigrants under a secular, homogenizing language and purpose. Further, I wish to live in a society in which each child is given a “free” education by the public regardless of their parent’s ability to pay in order to develop as free citizenry of prouctive young adults. The Veterans Administration, like the U.S. Army, could I suppose be given over to a private company for the purpose of material profit. I can imagine, but shudder at, our wars being fought by private companies but I doubt that the “For-Profit” motivation would operate a very effective medical system and national defense. Yes, I’m proud to call myself a Progressive Liberal, but as an old Vet who served honorably in the Army during Vietnam, I’m not too sure that I wouldn’t argue that each young man and woman, upon attaining 18 years of age, should “serve” the public in some way for a few years–not necessarily in the military but still performing some sort of public service–and for little renumeration. For that service, I may argue that a public form of education–trade-school or university–would be given to him upon satisfactory completion of his public service and his or her ability. This rather conservative position would, perhaps, instill in our young men and women a sense of public duty, a sense of communal values, seldom taught in our society’s narcissistic glorification of individualism and private greed. I’m sorry, but I don’t favor privatizing our educational instiutions, military defense, public roads, the Veterans administration, and our food and drug “safety net as do you, apparently.
But then the large banks (Like BOA) and corporations (like Enron) have recently run such an outstandingly efficient, safe and cost-effective companies that just perhaps we should trust our children’s education, our food, our drugs, our roads and our defense and our natural resources such as our parks and rivers to the stock owners of these companies. I’m sure they would look after our best self interest rather than their “bottom line of their companies.”
I don’t think so.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
What is it the business of the government to be running schools? It makes no sense to me. I think Enron would probably do a much better job than the mess the teachers unions have made of our public schools. As Rod Paige, Secretary of Education under George W. Bush, put it, the teachers unions are “terrorist organizations.” I’d rather have Bank of America than terrorists running our schools.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Nicholas:
Other than Paige backed off the statement the day after he made it, I would suspect that your position advocating the abolution of public schools across America would be supported by only a small group of extremists–most probably the religious fundamentalists, militiamen, and conspiratorialists who believe the government is ready to send your grandma to a “death panel.”
Throughout the history of America–except during Puritan New England era when relgious schools were preferred and the purpose of such universities as Harvard was to create an “educated religious leadership”– the idea of a secular education for the modern society was never part of the original charter –public schools indicated a sense of pride, hope for the future, and communal development. Later, public schools served as a means by which immigrant children–regardless of their financial means–were able to become “American”–not Catholic, or Irish, or Baptist or German–but part of the American melting pot. And that is, by way, still going on to a degree greater than in the past. Land Grant colleges sprang up beside public grade and high schools across the nation. In terms of higher education, the returning GI’s were later able, with the help of the GI Bill–to attend colleges and universities at a rate undreamed of by their parents. Both of us either did or now teach at one of those public schools, part of those land grant colleges that contributed and still contributes to a citizens.
And this system of public schools is duplicated to one degree or another in every developed, secular-oriented, nation in the world. England still has vestiges of the private school system left over from Victorian times, but the public system has largely replaced that in the primary areas. I really can’t think of a developed nation in the world–other than in Islamic Fundamentalist nations what private public schools are rejected in place of mind-numbing Madrassas for the brain-washing purpose of producing Islamic automatons–that doesn’t offer public schools for all their children and young adults.
It may make “no sense” to you to have government in the business of running schools, but it does make sense to the rest of the world and to most Americans.
Are there problems in the public schools? Hey, I taught in one for 30 years, I presently teach on-line for one, and I live in Florida most of the year where public schools are overwhelmed with problems. Of course the public educational system faces enormous challenges. But to suggest that they should be scrapped, to be replaced completely by private enterprise is, excuse me, highly irresponsible. Let our local school board experiment with Charter Schools, Magnet Schools, and any number of plans now being examined. Experiment freely. A society that fails to educate their children, regardless of race, class, creed, national origin, ability to pay, sex or sexual orientation, as best they can with the resources at their disposal and the problems facing a rapidly changing nation regardless, is a society that will ultimately explode and wither.
Oh, and as I urged you months ago when we first discussed this issue, may I suggest that if you really object to public roads, public schools, public police and fire department, public assistence in any way, or public regulation of our food, drug, banking and environment—well, pull your children out of school, quit your job, hitch up the family Jeep and head north; perhaps a nice cabin in the interior of Alaska would be best. I can’t think of a place on this planet other than some isolated spot far from Civilization that does not welcome and cherish public services and governmental control to some degree or other.
Now, of course, we can discuss the degree of public services; that is a legitimate discussioin. But the benefit of pubic service to or the chaos if destroyed of the common weal is not to be denied.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I see that you have to be one of only four people in order to post.
Okay.
I’ll stop reading this blog then.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Public schools might serve a purpose if they taught what needed to be taught: Latin and Greek, and Hebrew. But they don’t. They teach what? Spanish? Ouch. This is due to political correctness. They didn’t even offer Spanish at my New England boarding school. Such an idea would have seemed utterly absurd to them. Give me a public school that teaches Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and I’ll support it (as long as I don’t have to pay any taxes for it).
I do very much agree with your earlier post about national service. I think this is a fine idea, and young American adults should be required to serve for a year or more, as in Israel and other countries. Call me a socialist, but I think it would be very positive for our over-indulged, spoiled youth who care about nothing other than having the latest iPod or cell phone. National service would help young adults feel a part of something larger, something perhaps even spiritual. Our current youth are always “needing” something. But as poet Gary Snyder put it, true affluence is not needing anything. Young people should learn this, and national service could help.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Nicholas:
You said, “I’ll support it (as long as I don’t have to pay any taxes for it.” Well, I guess that pretty well sums up many Americans’ attitude toward public services: something for nothing.
In regard to “National Service,” I believe I received that idea of Robert Heinlein, the novelist: he had spent, I believe, many years in the U.S. Navy and understood the value of public service from his experience. Plus, he said exactly what you and I agree upon: our national culture emphasizes narcisstistic values, the immediate personal gratificaton, “what’s in it for me” assumptions, that only–he felt–if there could be one time in our children’s life when they “toil for the common good” could there be some hope for change. I suspect that you are not very attracted to “The Peace Corps” or “Americorps,” but whatever else one may say about them, they did train thousands of young men and woman to look outside themselves and create socially valuable projects. There are clearly thousands of projects, socially beneficial needs, and “public” (ooops) work projects that could be developed by our youth.
And yes, Israeli youths must spend years in the “military” but a large percentage are not “soldiers” in the traditional sense but are performing other duties for the common good. When they are finished, each young person is guaranteed an education to the level he is qualified–university, trade school, etc. Thus, you find very few 18 year old Israeli college students; rather, most are older.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Wallerstein should stick to what he knows, because it isn’t health care reform.