Behind Health Care Policies

What are the principles, values, and truths behind our health care policies?

Think this through carefully; for, when Republicans say that they want a market driven approach to health care coverage, what truth or value is ultimately being promoted?  For example, a market-driven approach to medical coverage results in one immediate truth: only those who can afford health care will get it.

In any market driven economy there will always be the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  It now becomes a question of principle.  Are there things of which all people, regardless of economic status and/or the ability to pay for it, have a right to receive?  So for example: Does everyone have a right to clean drinking water?  It’s a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer.  But it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?

If our answer to the above question is “no,” we are essentially supporting a market system for people’s access to clean drinking water, meaning that only those who can afford it have a right to receive it.  That being the case, what we are saying is that only the financially well-off have a right to live—for who can live without access to clean drinking water.

This is the inherent flaw with the promotion of strict Capitalism and the total negation of any policy that we fear smacks of Socialism.  In strict capitalism, private property rules the day; there is to be no public ownership for the good of all—no public water, no public land, and/or no public access to various other goods and services—such has medical services.  In short, if you cannot afford it, you must go without it—even if the inevitable result of “going without it” is death.

Thankfully we do not live in a strict or absolute capitalistic society.  My guess is that there is no country in the world that does.  But there are many who believe that we here in the U.S. have swung over, or are in danger of swinging over, too far to the left and have in fact become too socialistic in our economic policies, citing our Social Security benefits as an example, like Medicare and Medicaid, which are commonly called “Entitlements.”

But what are these programs other than an acknowledgment that access to certain basic human resources cannot and should not be left to private means or personal affordability?  Indeed, what good is our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if one has no ability to obtain or is unable to afford access to basic foundational life-sustaining necessities such as pure drinking water, or minimal basic food items, or even clean breathable air?

Before “Obama Care,” our approach to health care basically said this: “If you can’t afford health coverage, you’re out of luck.  So, if you’re deathly ill, too bad!  Just roll over and die.  And do it quickly, if you want to save your family money.”  Obama Care tried to soften this a bit, but the underlying truth is still there: only those who can afford health care coverage have a right to receive proper medical help for illnesses so as to live longer and avoid death if at all possible.

This is the crux of the matter.  Do we believe that all persons have a right to medical care, especially in life or death situations, or do we believe that only those who can afford it have this right—is it a privilege or a right?

What surprises me is that most Evangelical Christians support the Republican approach, which basically says that health care is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a communal right for all persons, poor or rich.  That’s not the Jesus I know.