Sanctity of Life
They didn’t know what else to do, they said. Her teeth had been killing her for days. The college students volunteering at the community shelter winced in pain as the stoic woman related the story from the previous weekend at her aunt’s house.
Step one: boil a pair of needle-nose pliers on the stove. Step two: 6 shots of Crown Royal to dull the pain. Step 3: extraction. This part gets messy, so you might want to put down some newspaper under her head.
“Is it scary?” they ask.
“Yeah, it’s scary.”
But when two family members are holding you down as a third approaches you in preparation to rip the teeth from your head, there’s no turning back.
Typically, my volunteers try not to look shocked or appalled when our neighbors are sharing their life experiences, but on this occasion, their facial expressions betrayed them. I wish I had my Polaroid so I could have captured their looks of horror and disappointment and confusion. They did not understand why this woman was saying such things. Couldn’t she have gone to the dentist? Why were these people living in such deplorable conditions? They weren’t in the darkest jungles of the world, miles from civilization. They were in Ohio.
I used to make that same face my volunteers were making. I used to be just as confused as they were that day. But then, I heard stories of elderly shut-ins cutting their expensive pills in half to make them last longer, even though any doctor will tell you that tampering with the dosage does more harm than good. I met the mothers who have their babies swallow adult doses of Advil for their upset stomach because they have nothing else in the house. And the only reason they had Advil in the first place was because it was given to them by a neighbor since the local pharmacy was so expensive. I looked at the nasty scars left behind from the injuries that went untreated when families could not afford to go to a hospital. I am not trying to be sensational. These are just the people I know. They have no choice. No insurance means no options. If they go to the doctor, there will be medical bills. When one is already at poverty level, medical expenses are crippling.
Even if they have insurance, they are still likely to face hell on earth. High deductibles and endless lists of non-covered conditions or exemptions make it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a poor man to get coverage. Whether or not their medical bills are paid for depends on whether or not it is profitable for the insurance company. After all, what better way is there to make a profit than to deny the claims or your clients?
So, I told some of my Christian friends that it is time for us to consider supporting universal healthcare. When I said that, I found out something interesting. I used to think we Christians were pro-life. It turns out, we are simply anti-abortion. When I began talking about universal healthcare, you would have thought that I suggested we lynch Pat Robertson.
I am still kind of hurt and confused over the exchanges I had with some of my fellow believers. I cannot figure out how people can be so radically pro-life, yet ignore the suffering of the poor and disenfranchised. There are 47 million people without healthcare coverage in the United States, and 50 million people are under insured. They are cold and hurting and bleeding to death on a daily basis, but the majority of the church is leaving them curled up alongside the road.
Why would we be concerned? We don’t see them. We don’t have to. With so many mechanisms in place to keep ourselves comfortable, many of us can go through our whole life and never interact with them. We have the luxury of looking the other way while they puke their guts out or writhe in pain or settle for the dimebag they find in their cousin’s house to take the edge off. Interestingly enough, we’re the ones who fought so hard to bring them into this world.
But what am I talking about? It is not only the poor who are suffering. The healthcare crisis is touching people across socioeconomic boundaries. I happen to work among the poor, so I am more sensitive to their plight, but there are many middle class folks who can’t get the procedures they need because their insurance won’t cover it. Apparently, when money talks, there is no room for a second opinion. I sure am glad that the ambiguous guy in that claims office hundreds of miles away is wise enough to decide which medical procedures we need and which ones we don’t. What do those doctors know anyway?
I am sure everyone reading this has some kind of horror story about the domestic war on terrorism, as embodied by the healthcare industry. Theirs is a terrorism of exploitation, preying upon the weak and sick. Ours is a terrorism of indifference, turning a blind eye to the madness.
In 2003, a bill was introduced to Congress proposing a universal health care system. This bill, H.R. 676, has been reintroduced each session since then. Recently, this bill has gotten a lot of attention from the media, partly due to the recent release of Michael Moore’s documentary about the American healthcare system.
I have been thinking about this a lot, mainly because of the stories I keep hearing from my friends in the inner city, and I came to the conclusion that the church ought to contact our Members of the House to get their commitment to back H.R. 676, and ask our Senators to introduce a companion bill.
I know. Our Evangelical/WASP heritage tells us that socialized medicine is the biggest threat since mad cow disease. But as I told my friends, before you freak out and start yelling about losing your choice of doctor or standing in line for 97 days or having to pay a ton in taxes, at least read the bill. Our friend John Conyers in Michigan can tell you more about it here. Representative Conyers has included a financial breakdown of the plan as well.
Now, here’s the part of the discussion where all of us are transported through time and space, back to the junior high dance. The boys gather on one side of the room, the girls gather on the other, and we all stare pensively at the ones we’ve sworn never to associate with. Universal healthcare is typically a Democrat thing, and Jesus followers are Republicans.
So, that settles that.
I refuse to make this a partisan debate, for several reasons. First of all, I kind of like to use my brain. Not to say that everyone who affiliates themselves with a political party is just succumbing to groupthink, but I do know Christians who are Republicans simply because that is what they were told they were from birth (which, by the way, only happened because the Democrats were not successful in destroying them while they were in the womb!). So, to the large percentage of Evangelicals who cling to their Republican heritage with unyielding, unquestioning loyalty, let me say this: just because you don’t like donkeys, it does not give you the right to be a jackass.
The reverse is true for you Evangelical Democrats (all three of you). Party affiliation is not an excuse to flush your brain down the toilet and make every decision with your political gag reflex. It has become far too convenient for Christians to slap a label on people and group them into teams without having to think about issues with any amount of intelligence. It is easier to beat our chest and grunt, “Us Republican good, you Democrat bad,” than to actually think through the implications of our traditional affiliations. Come on. Paris Hilton has more depth than that.
Second, it should not be about us and them anyway. Although many Christians aren’t satisfied unless they are fighting with someone, this issue in particular is deeper than a feud. Life issues transcend political party affiliation. I don’t care if you are blue or red, liberal or conservative, Obama or Huckabee. When your kid needs medical attention, what does it matter? Lest you think your bumper sticker means something, nobody cares who you are against. The world is more interested in seeing what you will stand for.
Was that blunt? I’m sorry. I have a hard time removing the emotional aspect of this discussion, so my words tend to be raw. This is not an impersonal issue to me. It is not an esoteric debate up in the clouds somewhere with hypothetical situations and imagined consequences. These are names and faces. The people I love are out there in the dark pulling out each other’s teeth with rusty tools. Aren’t we supposed to do something about that? Or is preaching the gospel at them enough?
Listen, I don’t know who you are backing in the next election. Really, I don’t care. The fact of the matter is, our healthcare system is broken. I don’t know if H.R. 676 is the answer or not. But I do know that if we are going to be pro-life, we need to look beyond the fetus. People are sick and dying and the odds are stacked against them. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations are getting richer and richer at the expense of suffering families. If the prophets of old weren’t kicking it with Jesus right now, they would be rolling over in their graves. We need the church to step up, now more than ever. The world is in desperate need of theology. I don’t mean brain theology, mind you, I mean theology with hands and feet, theology that walks and talks and lives. We need more than orthodoxy. We need orthopraxy.
Despite what our preachers may tell us next Sunday, institutionalized sin is just as ugly as personal sin. We seem to forget that. The day adultery became more sinful than big business trampling the poor on their way to the bank, well, that was a sad day indeed.
Posted on January 21, 2008 12:00 AM
Comments
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Our health system is indeed broken and injust. As someone who has lived abroad and benefited from "socialized" health care, I get upset about the lies that are spread about lines and taxes and the like. The quality of life for all is much better in countries where cost of treatment is not an issue and everyone gets the care that they need. Americans need to quit living in the bubble that we enjoy the highest living standard in the world, health care included. It's just not true. Funny thing is, the countries that take so much better care of its citizens are also labeled by Christians here as liberal and secular and godless. Even funnier, the people in those countries are saying the same things about Americans.
We need proper health care for all and we need it now.
Posted by: Kim Gottschild | January 21, 2008 6:10 AM
Dude. Who are you and how can I get in touch? Sweet Fancy Moses! I am not the only one thinking of such things in Ohio. I live in small town Ohio. The same issues apply.
I feel what you are saying deep down in my bones.
Contact me if you can. This site could be a catalyst for positive change.
-Kristi
Posted by: Kristi | January 21, 2008 7:08 AM
Thanks for writing on a very difficult subject.
While I think it would be wonderful if everyone could get everything they need when they need it. A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage makes a fantastic motto.
What I am bound by is the knowledge that that sentiment broke our country financially and we have never recovered from it. In reality out country is upwards of 30 trillion dollars in debt and no way to pay for it. We have promised ourselves that which we can ill afford and the collector is going come eventually.
We can't afford this war any more than we can afford the social security, medicare and social programs that have already been laid forth much less socialized medicine.
I am more concerned that it belies a troubling sentiment to me of abnegating our responsibility in the church. The government isn't supposed to be the hands and feet of Jesus. We are.
Why should we ask the government to take from someone else to give to someone else whom we might deem deserves it more. Why isn't it our own pockets we reach into first?
The question I keep coming back to is, why have we to a large part stopped? Why are we building mammoth buildings, recreation centers and the like. Why aren't we crossing church lines of division to corporately finance clinics and the like in our own communities?
For as many stories I've heard of the boons of countries with socialized medicine I've heard just as many stories of people who couldn't get help within those systems. Frankly, I don't know what would be better. I do know that my local church, clinic or shelter could do more with an extra chunk of my paycheck than the bureaucracy through which it would flow should we go down a government road.
A government bankrupted by attempting to provide for all the needs of its people can provide precious few.
In the meantime, it's into the mirror I look when I ask what should be done. I know it's know as much as I could.
-Josh
Posted by: Josh | January 21, 2008 9:44 AM
So let me get this right, if we pass universal health care then we get to lynch Pat Robertson? .......... I'm in.
Kidding, I am still in, I am kidding about the Pat Robertson part, did you know he can leg press like a thousand pounds?
There is a system in place its called medicare. It seems simple enough to expand it. Yes it is the bane of western civilization, this medical treatment for all. How can we call ourselves a loving country if we are not even willing to care for our citizens? Of course we are capitalists and there isnt as much money to be made from an all inclusive system that would limit how much you could be sued for.
Check out the job losses at OHSU because of a removal of a cap for judgements in lawsuits. No this would not be a perfect plan but I think it is a more Christlike attitude to include and then work to fix problems than to exclude and use potential problems as an excuse to do nothing.
If we get healthcare done could we go after the income tax next and replace it with a flat tax or better yet a national sales tax?
Posted by: Jed | January 21, 2008 3:20 PM
You are right that this world need not be afraid of theology and folks doing good in the name of God and Christianity. But, why then, is the solution found in government control of health care? Until the last three hundred years, where has health care existed? In the church. Where has education existed? In the church. I do not support universal healthcare as a government program because I believe in the good of people, not the central government who does not know me, my needs or the needs of those around me. If the central government continues to gain more control of more parts of our society, the less people will know how to care for one another. It is absolutely important that people are able to be alive and healthy but it is also important (if not equally so) how that goes about happening.
Posted by: Michael Dallas Miller | January 21, 2008 5:22 PM
Thank you all for commenting.
Allow me to clarify something:
I never said the answer was in the government alone.
However, let me point out that we the people are the government. If it is working against us (as it is in the realm of healthcare) then we need to address it.
Universal healthcare is not putting my hope in the good of the government, nor is it passing control to them. If anything, they are in control now. After all, when I am sick or injured, I am completely powerless at the hands of the system.
I have faith in the church as an instrument of change. But that does not mean we must exclude the government (which, believe it or not, is still us). While the church is God's hands and feet on the earth, we must recognize that the present system is oppressive and harmful to a large segment of our society.
We MUST address sin in all it's forms... including the institutionalized sin of making a profit off of the sick and dying by marking up medications, inflating insurance costs, and denying claims for the sake of saving a buck.
When corruption is evident, we must address it.
Regardless of whether or not you think universal healthcare is the answer, we should play a role in forcing our government to get in line. After all, "We the people..." are not supposed to be victims of the governing bodies. They work for us, not the other way around.
If a system is already in place for caring for the people, shouldn't the church work to redeem it? I think fixing what is already there is a better solution than simply "making due" or starting our own initiatives to care for health needs.
Ferreting out the sin inherent in the system...
Couldn't that be areasonable act of service in caring for the whole person?
If we change the system, we need not struggle against it.
Posted by: Jack Legg | January 21, 2008 8:11 PM
I have a couple of comments to the comments, first to Josh, this issue is much more tangled than simply letting churches take care of the problem. Most hospitals and clinics have their roots in the church. My wife works in healthcare and they open meetings with prayer and are very unbusinesslike in that manner. They also write off tens of thousands of dollars to charity every year for people who have no insurance.
I know that other hospitals do the same. Emergency healthcare is not denied for the most part because of a lack of payment. It is the ongoing or maintenance type of healthcare that people cant get because they have no coverage. Unless the churches can provide coverage for people we cant pay out of pocket for 50 million folks who have no insurance. Unless we set up a board that could review the cases and determine who really needs it. Sound familiar? This ties in with Michael Dallas Miller who believes in the good of people, it is these good people who run the central govt. I am not trying to be overly cynical but it is systems that corrupt and the church has proven to be as human as the govt.
The need is to bring cost under control and limits for the amount a person could win in a malpractice suit. The cost of insurance is outrageous and if you are not in a group you cant afford to buy it yourself. Our healthcare system is very good but our access to it stinks if you are poor or dont have an employer to get you in. That is the job of a govt. To protect its citizenry. We the people are to blame because our govt is a reflection of us. If they are selfish and greedy and willing to compromise values for $ then what does that say about us? These things will only change when the citizens change them at the ballot box. I am sure happy we have a whole slate of inspiring candidates to choose from.
Posted by: jed | January 22, 2008 9:57 AM
In response to Jed, thank you for your thoughts. My apologies if I wasn't clear. I don't think the church is the only answer here, but I do think it is the first place to which we should look.
My aunt is a regional coordinator for hospitals and I've heard of many stories of them writing off the cost of care. However, I've also heard of many stories of them having to roll back services or even close because of mandated care they must provide by the government which is not paid for.
The bill has to be picked up by someone. Yes, I think there are major issues with the cost of care and it has a lot to do with the things you mentioned.
The bottom line is that we as a nation are already writing checks we can't cash. Promising services and benefits we can't pay for.
Here's an interview with the guy who keeps our government's "books" since 1998:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70378
I do believe the government needs to play a part in fixing it. However I think the healthcare issues we see are symptoms of much deeper issues and I don't think throwing money at the symptoms is going to fix it. The government is not a very good steward of money nor is it a figure of efficiency.
You're correct, our government is a reflection on us. One facet of that image is a household living well beyond its means. Many to most of our representatives are elected and re-elected on bringing home the bacon to their home districts.
Or give us checks (as they're probably fixing to do).
That crow is gonna come home eventually.
Posted by: Josh | January 23, 2008 6:36 AM
In Greece they have socialized health care, but it still seems to work out so the poorest don't have as good of health care as the richest. There are long waiting lists, but if you can afford to, you can bribe your way to the top of the list.
In addition to our participation in government and church politics, what are some practical ways we as individuals can help those in need of medical treatment?
Posted by: Stephanie Nikolopoulos | January 23, 2008 10:41 AM
Hey Josh
I think we are probably like minded. I agree that the fix is probably going to take a concerted effort by the people as well as by our govt. I think a motivated politician who is willing to spend a career and probably his health battling the giant interests involved in this. I am thinking of the recent movie "Amazing Grace", I hadnt realised it was a twenty year quest. I think we are in the same sort of situation with healthcare we will have to keep beating the drum for a resolution.
I wish I knew what that will be I would tell someone. It seems as if it is too complicated and there is too much money at stake and no way on earth can we get this fixed and that is where the church comes in, our strength is not of this earth. So keep beating the drum brother and maybe the church will drop denominational nonsense and begin to pray in unison for our govt to be of by and for the people.
ps I am a little hurt that noone commented about my Pat Robertson joke.
Posted by: jed | January 23, 2008 3:16 PM
Universal healthcare is a start... not an end. And I never said it was simple.
It will be a continuous process to achieve "betterness". For, as one pointed out, even when healthcare is available for all, the poor can still be trampled.
Yes, we'll also need to address the horrendous stewardship of money our government is weighed down by. By trimming the fat on some of the crap our nation spends money on, you'd be surprised how much cash is freed up.
[Insert facts and figures here. Too lazy to do it myself]
I do know that spending 100 ka-billion-zillion dollars on a war each year is something we can't afford... and yet, here we are.
But perhaps I've said too much...
Posted by: Jack Legg | January 23, 2008 4:20 PM
Man. Great stuff. Thanks for clarifying these incredibly pressing issues.
This is me stating the obvious: health care is expensive. To provide everyone in need with quality basic health care requires a lot of money. Quite honestly, I just can't see that money coming together on charity alone.
Health care is either a right or it's not. Personally, I think not dying or living in pain from a treatable disease is a right.
Oh, and P.S.: I have a theory that "socialized medicine" is just a propaganda term made up by people who don't like it, to make everyone think of "socialism."
Posted by: Jessica Inman | January 24, 2008 9:55 AM
Instead of Starbucks, I'd like to see churches opening up clinics inside their buildings instead...
Posted by: Christy | January 24, 2008 1:52 PM
I agree with the intent. Everyone deserves healthcare. Everyone deserves access to the technologies and services that can help them best.
However, I disagree with socialized or universalized anything. When the government runs anything it is slow and wasteful. I believe that the competition and consumer expectations in the free market keep only the best in business and drives the rest out. My biggest reason for not going the universal route is that outside of a free market system there is much less motivation to invest and innovate in the system. This is because one company will get the contract to do some task or provide some product, or several companies can do it but for a set price. This takes out the allure of great potential profit.
I think there is definate big business corruption, but it is the big investments of companies hoping for a bigger payoff that fund R&D for new drugs and new technologies. Our system may keep operating up to the status quo, or we may get better at carrying out existing procedures, but the drive for improvement or innovation will be gone; and this is the very thing that gives me hope about our healthcare systems, the promise that a cure for all sorts of things is just around the corner. I will admit that the government does its share of research, but most of it, and much of the best of it seems to come from the private sector.
I dont know what the solution is. Honestly, I just thought Medicare was these peoples safety net (which my case in point is how wasteful Medicare is) I am for more spending to extend medicare coverage to more people or increase benefits. I am for more tax incentives for physicians or facilities to provide charity care. I think the government should encourage certain behavior, but not take over the process.
Posted by: Jon | January 24, 2008 2:35 PM
ADDENDUM FROM THE AUTHOR:
Okay, a few folks think I was too blunt in my presentation of this issue.
I did not intend to offend... well, yes I did. It probably wasn't right, but I decided that sometimes one just needs to be blunt. So I am, on occasion, a... what's the word? Jerk! An eloquent jerk, but one nonetheless. Much to the chagrin of a few of my colleagues, I have discovered my innate ability to "get in the face" of folks when the time comes. Generally, I use more grace. But to be honest, on this particular issue, I was getting shouted down at the first hint of disagreement. So I went with it.
Although I long ago left my Fighting Fundamentalist roots, I have seen some value to returning on rare occasions, if only for a quick rant now and then. Sometimes, jarring them is the only way to produce thought. Which seems backwards to me, but, hey, it worked.
People get locked into "White Polite" and no one steps on toes. So, sometimes I try to.
More than that, the neighborhoods I work in are longing for someone to get pissed off on their behalf (to stick with being blunt).
Much love to the readers.
Posted by: Jack Legg | January 24, 2008 7:21 PM
Thank you for your passionate challenge to be consistent in our commitment to the sanctity of life. We can all use that reminder from time to time.
You mentioned that there is a great divide between people Republicans and Democrats or those who want socialized healthcare and those who don't. It would seem that this divide turns out to be mainly over finances. Do we help others by funding a government program through taxes, or would the uninsured be better served by people taking personal ownership of the need to give charitably?
What about another approach that is not based on what is taken from us or what is given by us but by what we spend?
Allow me to explain. If you want to buy a bike, you can go online and get the full details on its special features, where it is sold, and how much each store will charge for it. If you want to stay at a hotel, you can search all the hotels in the area. You can discover their rates, their specials, and any attractions nearby that would influence your decision. This is what we call transparency--when people or companies disclose information so the consumer has the power and ability to make informed choices.
The problem is, healthcare is completely opaque.
The way things are now, you go to the doctor. She tells you that you need an MRI. You go where she tells you to go for it, and you get a bill later on. There is no shopping around for the best deal (which clinic does MRIs for less money), no weighing of treatment options (is an MRI even recommended for my condition?). We don't ask questions.
I work for Regence BlueCross BlueShield, a not-for-profit health insurance company that is making a major push for transparency in the healthcare system. Why? Look what happened with Laser eye surgery.
Most health plans wouldn't cover the surgery, so companies that provided it had to market it to the public instead of hospitals or doctors. And what happened? Because people were paying out of pocket, they shopped around for clinics where they got the best value for the best price. Clinics started lowering prices, until within a few years, the prices dropped by $2000 per eye at the same time technology had greatly improved!
You may be asking why I bring all this up in response to an article about socialized healthcare. My point is that if we demand our healthcare providers and hospitals to deal transparently with us and see us as their customer, prices will come down, making it far cheaper for people to be treated and to be insured. As medical expenses go down, the cost of insurance premiums go down as well, making it more and more affordable for people to be covered, whether on their own nickel or on everyone's nickel.
This is not a panacea for the crisis we're in right now, but it is a key component of the solution, no matter whether we move to a socialized or privitized universal healthcare system.
Posted by: Randy Cathcart | January 25, 2008 8:26 PM
Wow. Randy Cathcart, thank you for the insights. That issue was one of my blindspots... but it makes perfect sense when I think about it.
Thanks
Posted by: Jack Legg | January 26, 2008 4:31 PM
Check out parish nursing, they do what nurses do in home care for free for the people who dont have healthcare. Maybe we need to facilitate this program more nationwide. Great article
Posted by: Marie | January 27, 2008 1:25 AM
This is why I would not ever want to lable myself "a christian" If we are to be a "pro-life" society, it should continue even after we are born. Even into old age...look at how we as a culture treat our elderly. (The ones who don't have much money)
Most of us ignor the suffering of others because it is so much easier. (I have done it too) At some point shouldn't we ask ourselves.."Is this really what Jesus would do?"
Great article!!!
Posted by: susan | January 27, 2008 8:35 PM